Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 15 - Evidence - May 4, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 4, 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 8:04 a.m., to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and chair of the committee.
We are continuing our work this morning on Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).
Before I give the floor to our witnesses this morning I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, beginning on my immediate right.
Senator Gold: Good morning. I'm Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator Sinclair: Good morning. I'm Murray Sinclair from Manitoba.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, and I'm also from Manitoba. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf region, Quebec.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We may have some other senators joining us as the morning progresses.
We have with us this morning two witnesses. I would ask them to introduce themselves first. I understand you have some opening remarks you'd like to make and then we'll go to senators for questions.
John Nightingale, President and CEO, Vancouver Aquarium: Good morning. I have had the privilege of serving as president and CEO of the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre for the past 24 years. I am a marine biologist by academic training and have moved during my career from the pure science to working much more in public awareness and education.
I would like to begin by thanking the senators for their thorough examination of the bill and the complex issues that it raises.
Given that you are the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, I know that you are well aware of the threats our oceans are facing. As we sit here today, we are in the middle of what scientists call the Holocene extinction, sometimes called the sixth extinction. It is the ongoing and in some cases devastating loss of species in our environment in present times, mostly due to human activity. In this era entire families of plants and animals, including birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, are simply disappearing from our planet. The scientists studying it say that at the present rate of extension we may lose eventually up to 140,000 species per year, making it the greatest loss of biodiversity on our planet since the dinosaurs.
Canada is not escaping this devastation, and particularly Canada's oceans are not immune. Turning the tide will take a great effort by all of us: government, industry, science, conservation organizations, and maybe most importantly the public.
The Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre and institutions like it, facilities that educate, raise awareness, seek to inspire action, do original research and increasingly actually save species, have an important role to play in this effort. My fear is that Bill S-203, or any legislation that criminalizes and seeks to phase out keeping, caring for and learning about animals, will limit our ability to do this work. Little by little, laws like this one impact our ability to engage the public, to learn through science and to help nature. Once it's gone, it's gone.
I know you have heard arguments at this committee suggesting that these aspects of our conservation mission don't succeed, that we don't educate, inspire, do research or help. I would like to address those arguments briefly one by one.
First, do we educate and do we inspire? Certainly you can learn from a photo or video, absolutely, but both common sense and a growing body of scientific literature says that experiential learning, seeing the real thing, makes a huge difference not just in comprehension but in the emotional attachment that we so much need to foster in more and more people. I'm going to leave with the clerk of the committee, should any of you want to look at them, a few academic and scientific literature pieces.
In 2013, a study measured the influence of the connection of zoo visitors with wildlife and conservation behaviours. In that study the authors found a very positive correlation and influence. In 2014, a global impact evaluation study of zoos and aquarium visitors found an increase in the understanding of biodiversity and an increase in the respondents who could identify something they could personally do to help protect biodiversity. Science has proven that zoos and aquariums foster a connection in nature, but we already knew that because we see it every day at the Vancouver Aquarium.
In Vancouver, we regularly work with an environmental reporter who covers stories about climate change, pollution, research, and conservation: all facets of nature. She shares these critical stories with her television audience and the online audience, spreading awareness of what's going on with nature in Canada, the issues and the actions.
She often tells us how working at the Vancouver Aquarium as a university student cultivated her love of nature and the ocean. When our marine mammal rescue team heads out to the west coast of Vancouver Island for an animal stranding or disentanglement, they often work with a fisheries officer who is passionate about protecting our oceans and ecosystems. She too says her career path was shaped by first visiting and then working at the Vancouver Aquarium.
Later this morning you will hear from Laurenne Schiller, a Ph.D student at Dalhousie University who plans to save bluefin tuna from extinction. I think she just might do it. She will tell you how her visits as a child to see our beluga whales at the Vancouver Aquarium hooked her on the ocean for life.
We had almost 1.2 million visitors at the aquarium last year and more than half of them were children. We know that among them are the environmental reporters, the fisheries officers and the scientists of tomorrow. In short, that's our mission.
At the Vancouver Aquarium we also inspire action from members of the public who might not be ocean champions yet — they may be in the future — but who learn enough to want to make changes to their daily lives. Many of them join us in our direct action programs like the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup and in choosing sustainable seafood options as recommended by our Ocean Wise sustainable seafood program. There are countless stories like these. We know we reach people.
Now to talk just for a moment about research, are the studies done at the Vancouver Aquarium and facilities like ours of value? The short answer is an unequivocal yes.
You have had several speakers appear here to tell you that you cannot learn about wild animal behaviour by studying them in aquariums. That's partly true. That's an opinion provided to you by behavioural scientists but behaviour is not the only thing we need to know about marine mammals.
In the aquarium we have learned about cetacean physiology, the body's mechanisms, how they interact and how they operate within each of us, a living system. We have learned about their hearing and acoustic ability. We have learned about their diet and energy requirements. We learned about lung mechanics and pulmonary function. We have tested field equipment, such as hydrophones or mark and recapture bands, pneumotachometers, non-invasive attachments for satellite tags and cameras, and the list goes on.
As you heard here last month, researchers are recording and measuring the acoustic communication of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary to learn how we can mitigate the impact of underwater noise on that population, which was upgraded from threatened to endangered, under the Species at Risk Act just this week. All that research began with beluga whales at the Vancouver Aquarium.
In the Gulf of California, the Mexican government and U.S. researchers are now collaborating on an emergency rescue plan for the critically endangered vaquita porpoise, the smallest of the world's porpoises. The porpoises at the Vancouver Aquarium provided the key data for the strategy that will be employed to find the vaquitas. There are so few of them that finding them to rescue them is the biggest problem.
Our scientists currently studying endangered killer whales off the coast of B.C. are using photogrammetry, which is photos taken from a drone, to measure and assess the whales' length and girth, or how fat they are, to determine if they're getting enough to eat. All of those baseline measurements for that critical research were collected from the killer whales at SeaWorld.
Is that it? Have we learned enough? I think we're not even close. You've heard scientists on both sides of this debate tell you that this is a very young field of research. That's true. We only really began learning about some of these non- behaviour aspects of cetaceans when they first came into aquariums about 50 years ago. Our knowledge and expertise have grown exponentially in that time, but we have a lot further to go. We have been studying the human condition, treatment, human medicine for thousands of years, yet we still continue to do research on improving medical care and diseases that threaten humans.
I know there is some debate about whether this bill will allow for continued work with the animals we currently have and with rescued animals. It doesn't. Bill S-203 makes it an offence to display a cetacean. The habitats we have to hold whales and dolphins in are visible to the public. In fact it's the admission fees paid by those visitors that make it possible for us to care for not only those animals but to do the research and the education work we do.
If we're to prevent the mass extinction of wildlife around the planet it will require an effort by all of us, and aquariums should be counted in, not out. We've only begun to scratch the surface of what's possible in conservation with species programs, captive breeding programs, reintroduction, and head start projects for species at risk. The list goes on. Zoos and aquariums offer critical elements in these efforts that other stakeholders simply can't. We offer the space to hold animals, the expertise and the contact with the public.
Around the world facilities like ours have helped save species such as the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the Panamanian golden frog, a program we're involved in. Programs like these take time to develop and they take the expertise gained through experience. Unfortunately for some species science will not provide solutions fast enough for us to help, but we think we have to try.
For whales, dolphins and porpoises at risk in Canada, the passing of Bill S-203 will not only prevent us from doing the research we've already begun or planned for, but it would also stop cold efforts by other aquarium scientists. Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre is the only place in Canada where researchers can come and do research on animals that can be trained to participate in the research.
I want to be clear. That's not behavioural research. You've heard from some behavioural scientists. That's research into all of the other aspects that matter in trying to understand these species enough to provide the management strategies and to help government with the management strategies in order to save them.
This piece of legislation will significantly impact our ability at the Vancouver Aquarium to teach future generations about mammals that live in our oceans and, yes, it will impact the aquarium's current and planned research and our ability to rescue future stranded cetaceans. The far-reaching consequences of Senate Bill S-203 could well be the end of any cetacean species survival programs in Canada before we've really begun, let alone succeed.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, the floor is yours.
Mr. Martin Haulena, Head veterinarian, Vancouver Aquarium: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill S-203. I'm Mr. Martin Haulena, and I've been the head veterinarian at the Vancouver Aquarium since 2006. I have been following this debate, not just in your committee meetings but throughout the course of my career. It has been an interesting path to say the least.
To begin, greater knowledge and understanding about these species and the increasing threats they face in the wild, alongside a parallel but inaccurate narrative about the harm caused by facilities like our aquarium, the latter is simply not true. The natural world including our oceans needs an informed, engaged public, along with well-trained professionals to take action in caring for it. This is where modern, accredited zoos and aquariums play an important role.
I'd like to start by addressing the term "animal welfare.'' The conversation about animals in human care is often distorted by confusion between two concepts: animal welfare and animal rights. Concern for the welfare of animals, whether it is livestock, pets, animals in aquariums or wild animals, is a priority for every veterinarian. It's why we do what we do. We choose this profession because we are passionate about animals and we care about their health and their well-being. We don't cause suffering. We alleviate it. We absolutely can measure animal welfare. We know when they're healthy and doing well or if they're in pain or distress. We have objective markers for health and well-being, including ethograms, clinical signs, physical evaluation and diagnostic laboratory monitoring.
Animal rights advocates, by contrast, argue that humans have no right to use animals at all, not for food, clothing, companionship, education, engagement or anything else. "Animal welfare'' and "animal rights'' describe profoundly different ideas, but somehow they've become interchangeable. It does an enormous disservice to the incredible care provided by good zoos and aquariums around the world.
I grew up in Ottawa, only a few kilometres from where we sit today. My passion for marine mammals and other aquatic species came directly from visiting aquariums as a child. I have devoted my life to learning about marine mammals, their health, the threats facing them and their welfare.
I graduated in 1993 from the Ontario Veterinary College and completed a clinical fellowship in aquatic animal medicine at Mystic Aquarium and a master's degree in pathobiology from the University of Guelph. I became a diplomate of the American College of Zoological Medicine in 2007, with a subspecialty in aquatic animals. I am a board-certified specialist in aquatic animal medicine, only one of two people in Canada with that designation.
My expertise is in the medical management of marine mammals, with an emphasis on innovative diagnostic methods, developing safe anesthetic protocols and improving surgical techniques.
I am the current president elect for the International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, and I am affiliated with the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians and the Wildlife Disease Association. I have authored more than 60 scientific articles and book chapters, and I have been working with marine mammals in aquariums, in rehabilitation facilities and in the wild for more than 25 years.
You heard from animal rights advocates at this committee that the set of skills, body of knowledge and expertise gained from working with animals in aquariums provides virtually zero contribution to the conservation of wild species. It's a statement that is a categorically false.
So far, in 2017, I have been asked to participate in a health assessment workshop for endangered southern resident killer whales, a study investigating the evaluation of diet composition using data from our animals at our aquarium, a study investigating long-term changes in hearing in beluga and how ship noise may impact wild populations, the development of novel imaging techniques in marine mammals using virtual reality reconstruction of CTs and MRIs, an imaging study evaluating tooth wear in wild offshore transient killer whales, a study on categorizing skin lesions in wild killer whales in order to create indices of health in southern resident killer whales, an assessment of a boat strike injury in a grey whale from Puget Sound, a review of Department of Fisheries and Oceans release criteria for stranded cetaceans, a review of abstracts submitted to the Society for Marine Mammalogy, Marine Mammal Health Section, for an upcoming conference, and the emergency rescue plan for the critically endangered vaquita. As well as providing access to our harbour porpoises for the team designing the plan, I will be available to provide veterinary advice should they succeed in rescuing any of the 30 left in the world.
The Vancouver Aquarium Marine Mammal Rescue Centre is the most successful program in North America at rehabilitating stranded harbour porpoises, including saving neonates, newborn calves. I am also scientific chair and organizer of the IAAAM meeting two weeks from now.
In 2016, I provided veterinary advice to researchers trying to save a stranded beluga calf in the St. Lawrence Estuary and to others trying to save a killer whale calf in New Zealand.
The skill set of an aquatic animal veterinarian is uncommon and built only from hands-on experience from working with animals. It's indispensable. You cannot learn to be a marine mammal vet by watching videos on YouTube or documentaries on the National Geographic Channel, no matter how captivating and inspiring the visuals are. Unlike professions that are becoming obsolete because of technology, demand is only growing for skilled veterinarians with the expertise to help our at-risk wildlife.
Every year at Vancouver Aquarium we play host to at least 12 talented final-year veterinary students from around the world, four animal health technician students and numerous Ph.D and master's students. We also have an extremely competitive one-year fellowship for veterinarians who hope to eventually specialize in this field. We provide core rotations for three veterinary residency programs.
The experts of the future come to our facility to learn. They come because we have incredible animals including cetaceans that provide a veterinary experience that cannot be replicated anywhere else in Canada and is becoming increasingly rare in the world.
It is equally false to say that the research studies done on captive animals provide virtually zero benefit to animals in the wild. If we only applied what we learned to animals in our own care that might be true, but we don't. It's about all of us working together. Aquarium veterinarians, animal trainers and care staff collaborate with researchers working with our animals and working in the field to learn about physiology, ecology, genetics, pathology, toxicology and more. None of it happens in isolation.
For example, beluga scientists have had a difficult time determining how long wild belugas live. Our whales will help to improve their ability to age them accurately. A recent study to evaluate seasonal reproductive changes means we can better understand what a wild whale is telling us. Our whales provide data for that research. Understanding cancer in an old whale in Vancouver helps to put cancer rates in St. Lawrence beluga whales in perspective.
Measuring how hearing changes as captive whales age, gives us evidence to decide if hearing loss in wild whales is because of abnormal expose to noise. Looking at exposure to diseases that have a zoonotic component in aquarium whales allows us to help people to evaluate their food safety in the Arctic and shows how disease exposure changes as climate changes. It all works together all the time.
What may be important yesterday, like evaluating lung function to help stranded animals, may not be as important as ground-truthing photogrammetry so we can evaluate wild whale body condition tomorrow. The point is that our animals are available to anyone that has a valid question all the time and at any time. They are the only ones in Canada available to researchers, and eventually this legislation will phase out one tool we have to investigate issues in the future. It is short sighted for anyone to pretend to know what will be of value tomorrow.
I am aware that Bill S-203 has a provision for rescuing animals in distress and for continued research with rescued animals that cannot be released back to the wild. However, the bill is titled, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins). If, as it's written, it is a criminal offence to display whales and dolphins, the Vancouver Aquarium can't provide a permanent home for those that are not releasable. If we can't keep a population of whales and dolphins at the aquarium, over time, we will lose the expertise, the space, and the people who make it possible to do rescue rehabilitation and research.
It is actually the aquarium's Marine Mammal Rescue Centre that brought me to Vancouver. It's the only one of its kind in Canada.
I save lives for a living. I always have. The ability to respond in a crisis is what is most important to me. Having those tools in the tool chest — vets, biologists, water quality experts, vet techs, husbandry experts and facilities always trained and always ready — is invaluable now and into the future.
As Mr. Nightingale told you, it's only getting worse for the St. Lawrence belugas and other cetacean species in danger. As we're seeing with cetaceans that have gone extinct in the recent past, with the vaquita that will be extinct soon, the southern resident killer whales that we will also likely not save over the longer-term, it eventually comes down to saving lives on an individual animal basis. You must have experts on hand, able to do what they do best. Otherwise there is no hope.
The fewer people and facilities available to respond to crises, to train for the future, to help us to gain a better understanding and to keep the public aware, the less chance these species have. There are no two ways about this.
Finally, the whale and dolphin programs at Canada's aquariums contribute much more than zero to the conservation of wild species. The same cannot be said of the animal rights advocates who brought this issue to you. Most of the activists, former trainers and researchers who appeared at this committee in support of Bill S-203, are not conducting research that will help to save endangered species. They are not gaining expertise and amassing knowledge that will help to prevent extinction.
The theories they presented to you here about the educational impact of zoos and aquariums, the value of our research, and the ethics of our care are aimed only at shutting down our cetacean programs. They are not trying to save species. They are not working on the conservation of Canada's wildlife. That's what we do. I hope you will support the critical work we do and prevent Bill S-203 from moving forward through the legislative process.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will begin our questions. I want to remind senators that we have a little over 30 minutes before our next panel, so perhaps you could get to your questions and maybe a follow-up. Then we'll go to our next senator and if we have an opportunity to come back on a round two, we will.
Senator Plett: Gentlemen, thank you for the great presentations. You have answered many of the questions.
I have visited the aquarium numerous times, both as a paying customer and as the critic of this bill trying to do some research. Dr. Haulena, you made a comment at the end that your animals are available to anybody anytime. Before I ask my question, I just want to say this: Three of my granddaughters visited the aquarium. I have a feeling they maybe got a more extensive tour of the aquarium than most paying customers did, but they came away from that aquarium not telling me, "Grandpa, we saw all these animals and what great animals they were.'' They came away from it telling me what they saw behind the scenes: the love and care that were shown to the rescued animals and indeed the love that they got from all the people working there. I think that is a testimonial and it would be great if the public could see that a little more regularly than just see the animals, but be that as it may.
Mr. Nightingale, as a long-time conservationist, what do you feel are the real issues happening in nature that require human intervention? How do you see these programs helping to shape and engage the Canadian population that cares about our marine environment?
Dr. Haulena, how many marine mammals have you rescued and rehabilitated in your career? How easy is it for someone to rehabilitate a stranded cetacean?
Mr. Nightingale: The formal mission of the Vancouver Aquarium is to effect the conservation of nature. "Effect'' was the shortest word we could find in the English language dictionary to mean make it happen; not try, not support, but actually go out and make it happen.
The epiphany for the aquarium was about 25 years ago when we did a first strategic plan and a facilitator had us do one of those classic analyses where you look at your strengths, weaknesses, threats and so on. We realized that our biggest asset was not the location in Stanley Park. It was not even the animal collection. The biggest asset we have in our quest for conservation is our audiences.
Many things that we as ordinary people are involved in, in our daily lives in the world and in the world economy, impact the oceans. We realize that we need to certainly continue direct rescue of species. You need to continue research, but we also need to help raise that level of awareness and interest in people.
The example I use is plastic. When the aquarium opened in 1956, there were only two plastics and one of those was called Bakelite. You might remember the old heavy black telephones. They were Bakelite plastic. Today there are 10,000 plastics in use around the world. Eight million tonnes of plastics go into our ocean every year. That's into the ocean. Thirty million tonnes of plastic go into the environment as a whole. A lot of what is impacting the ocean is plastic bags. We just used that as one example with visitors at the aquarium. You think what's floating around is a plastic bag. To sea turtles it looks exactly like a jellyfish, which is what they eat. If they eat a number of plastic bags they get plugged up and end of sea turtle.
Our quest is to help all 1.2 million visitors who come to the aquarium, and increasingly the millions we see digitally online, to understand that if we just took a little more care, reduced our use of plastics and were careful about how we throw our plastic bags away, each one of us could help the ocean. That's one of about 200 or 300 stories we use with the public to help people understand that we all have a role to play. There are things we can do, without turning our economy upside down, without wrecking our household, without having to spend tons more money. Just by being a little smarter, we all can together help the ocean.
Each of us is like just one grain of sand on the beach. If enough grains of sand get together and do something, then you do have a beach or a whole ocean. That's the mission of the aquarium. The animals people see when they come are really the ambassadors or the starting point.
Senator Plett mentioned his grandchildren talking about the passion. For 500 staff members at the aquarium and 1,200 volunteers it's passion for the future that drives all of them.
Dr. Haulena mentioned that the goal of the activists is to put aquariums like us out of business to end animal display. That's contrasted to our goal, which is to try and positively impact the future of nature. They are two different sets of goals. I'll leave it to you to judge which one might be more valuable for the future of our country, the earth and humanity.
Dr. Haulena: The first question was how many marine mammals have I dealt with as stranded animals. It took me this whole time to try to count things. I'm getting a little bit long in the tooth. I have worked in United States and in Canada. I have worked with folks in South America, Europe and Asia helping stranded animals. I have been directly involved with 10,000 to 15,000 stranded marine mammals and sea turtles in my 25-year career.
How easy is it to rescue a cetacean? It is incredibly difficult. Those animals are not designed to be on land. When they come on land it is because of a very devastating thing that has happened to them. Often we don't even know, especially when they first hit land.
There are times where there are some animals, a group stranding, and you might be familiar with the mass stranding effect of pilot whales or dolphins especially on the East Coast. That's a geographically specific, oceanographic kind of event. It often has to do with the geology and weather in a certain geographic region. Those animals can sometimes be evaluated and pushed back or brought out to sea because they have all stranded very close together and only because of that.
On the West Coast we have a different situation where we have animals that strand singly and are in really rough shape when they hit the beach. There was a study out of a facility I used to work at in California, the largest marine mammal rehabilitation facility in the world, the Marine Mammal Center. It published a paper that suggested only about 10 per cent of live stranded cetaceans actually survive. In my nine years at that facility, rescuing dozens of cetaceans including at least half a dozen harbour porpoise calves, we could never get one to survive.
However we have in Vancouver several times now. The only reason we could do that, I'm convinced, is because we had not just the veterinarian, the vet techs and the animal rescue people who were devoted and caring and obviously have some expertise, but we have that incredible support team of water quality specialists. These are people who know how water works, how pools work, how we can warm water quickly or cool it or deal with it very quickly in an emergency situation, and how we can support a critical care animal through very critical stages of rehabilitation.
The animal husbandry folks, the trainers who knew how to deal with babies, what they needed, and how to support them through that critical period, is what creates success and has translated to the most successful harbour porpoise rehabilitation program in North America. Now with vaquitas, which are similar species, it has become an increasingly viable skill.
Senator McInnis: It has been very interesting. When presenting, as senator Plett said, good presenters answer the questions that are going to be asked. You have done a wonderful job but I wanted to get into this: Your mission statement is the conservation of aquatic life through display, communication, public programming and education, research and direct action. I want you to put some weight on some of this and I want you to explain this not-for-profit organization.
Where did it come from? Was it predicated on research and direct action? How did it start? This is a volunteer group. I have heard you say that, but it's a not-for-profit group. How did it all begin?
Mr. Nightingale: If you talk to Heritage Canada they will tell you that the aquarium is classified as a cultural institution in the same category as institutions such as museums, art galleries, symphonies and that sort of thing. It is the only large cultural institution in the country that operates without an annual subsidy from any level of government. It's a non-profit. As you say, it's pretty unusual.
It had an unusual birth. It had a founding board five years before it opened, so that would have been in 1951, which gave it four founding principles. First was to play a major role in research. That's because some of the board members were UBC professors. There wasn't any SFU in Vancouver in 1951. Second was to play a major role in education. The school superintendent was part of that founding board. Third was to help make Vancouver more attractive. That was probably a combination of contributing to tourism and contributing to the stature of the city. Fourth was to operate in a financially self-sufficient manner, independent of government. The business people on that founding board said, "We don't want to set up a non-profit that is dependent on government funding year in and year out or having to use taxpayer money. There is no reason why, if you're properly operated, you can't stand on your own two feet.''
Conservation, the fifth pillar, wasn't something people talked about in 1950. It was really Rachel Carson in Silent Spring and the first Earth Day in 1970 when that really came into public consciousness and became a fifth founding pillar. Those are the pillars that have driven the aquarium.
The aquarium basically operates as a visitor attraction from a pure business point of view. In other words, people come for a variety of reasons. We hear time and time again that families come because the kids love it. The parents are sure it's good for the kids and the parents get hooked. The aquarium has 27,000 membership households in Vancouver, across B.C and across the country. Some 1,500 of those are from people outside of Canada who want to belong because they want to be part of this mission. It has stood on its own two feet financially and it was set up that way. That's unique in Canada.
Every cent the aquarium earns through the economics of admission fees and our gift shop are plowed back in. That's what pays for the $2 million that we're able to put into research and conservation. The $2 million we put in generates another $3 million or $4 million. It's an economic engine for research and conservation, which is operating just fine without the need to draw on taxpayer money.
This bill and the companion effort under way in Vancouver with the Vancouver Park Board threaten all of that. From an education point of view, how can we tell kids to come see, learn about, become interested in and eventually passionate about the ocean world? We are going to show you these animals but not those animals. We are just going to show you a video.
As these papers show, and if you get hear from author Richard Louv, who wrote the book Last Child in the Woods, he is a passionate proponent for seeing the real thing. Something he calls experiential learning makes all the difference in the world. You can learn a lot about cooking from a video. You can learn an awful lot, but you have to go in the kitchen and do it or it is just academic knowledge.
Senator McInnis: What void would be left in the world of academic research and government departmental research? If the Vancouver Aquarium shut down, where would the void be?
Mr. Nightingale: As you're well aware, there are only two places in Canada that have cetaceans in care: Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium. We have much more of a science focus than Marineland does. They are developing one slowly. We are doing our best to push that along, working collaboratively.
The cetaceans, the whales, dolphins and porpoises at the aquarium, are the only ones where a researcher can phone Marty and say, "Can I come take the temperature when they are 10 feet under water,'' or whatever they want to know.
Behavioural research, as you have heard from some of those people in past panels, can be done in the wild. You can watch animal behaviour with binoculars of wild belugas in the St. Lawrence. You can't take their temperature. You can't understand their metabolism. You can't know their range of hearing and you can't know how many colours they can see from wild whales. That work has to be done with animals that are trained to participate in the research.
If you all go get your hearing tested, the doctor puts your earphones on and gives you a button and says, "When you hear the tone, push the button.'' That's essentially what you can do with the whales in the aquarium. The audiologist can do that and say, "Wave your flipper when you can hear the tone.'' We now understand what frequencies and loudness whales can and can't hear. That's something we would never know if it weren't for having them.
We don't know everything. There is a huge amount of knowledge we need to gain. With this bill, even though it says it doesn't prevent research, because it prevents display and transfer of animals it will shut down research. That means it will shut down both rescue and our ability to utilize those animals to engage the public.
It's miscast in the sense of people purporting to be worried about animal welfare. You have heard from several folks that Canada has world-leading standards now in animal welfare. That's part of the question, but the real question is why they are there in the first place.
Senator Gold: Thank you for your presence today. This is a very polarized issue. I'm struggling with it, so I hope you can help me and help us.
We have heard a lot of evidence about the harm to cetaceans in captivity. This is a very brief introduction to my question. There are different kinds of harm. There is physical harm, physiological harm, hormonal levels, behavioural and so forth. Do you deny that keeping a cetacean in captivity causes some harm?
Life is a trade-off between harm and the benefits from research. That's really where I want to go. I want to understand your point of view as to the harm that may accrue to a cetacean in captivity. Do you acknowledge or deny that there is harm? I would like a brief answer so I can get to my question.
Dr. Haulena: The brief answer is no, but obviously it's a complicated answer. Is life different for an animal living in an aquarium than in the wild? Absolutely. Is it inherently stressful? No. Is it inherently harmful? No.
A paper just came out looking at the immune systems of wild dolphins versus animals living at an aquarium. The wild dolphins are much sicker than the animals living in an aquarium. There are a lot of parameters to measure.
Can you do things better all the time? Absolutely. That's what the focus is of a good animal husbandry program.
Mr. Nightingale: The fact is that none of the whales and dolphins in Canada or in North America can go back to live in the wild.
Senator Gold: Understood.
Mr. Nightingale: That part is a moot point. The other issue is that often when people say "harm,'' they are using human criteria. I hear all the time: "I wouldn't want to live in that bathtub.'' They are using human think, not whale think.
What matters to a beluga whale in terms of the necessities of life, or if you want to say what might make it happy? Those are unique to that whale. We can't use our human values. We know some species migrate long distances. Belugas have to migrate a long distance. The reason is that where they are in the summer freezes solid in the winter. If they don't, they die.
Do they want to, if they had their druthers? When there is no ice they don't migrate much at all. They all swim around together in big groups. With the criteria you use to assess harm we need to think about it from their point of view, not from our point of view.
Senator Gold: If we accept that there is harm but there is nonetheless an important research function for the benefit of cetaceans in the wild that may be carried on, what amendments if any or what changes to this bill would you recommend to enable research to continue and/or to change the kinds of displays? I'm not suggesting that your dolphins jump through hoops, though I remember seeing that as a kid somewhere else. What displays would allow the research to continue while minimizing, if not eliminating, the perceived harm and problem with capturing whales and cetaceans and bringing them into captivity? Do you have some practical suggestions for us to improve this bill?
Dr. Haulena: Absolutely. First of all, let me stress with all due respect that it is perceived harm. There is no significant harm to this animal. There is no inherent harm to this animal. No matter what you have heard, an animal is not suffering.
I can tell you our animals are happy. They have happy lives with happy people. They have happy days. Do they have a bad day every now and then? Absolutely. We all do but there is no inherent harm in our facilities.
Senator Gold: You acknowledge that we have heard evidence to the contrary.
Dr. Haulena: You have heard evidence but I'm the expert, I have to say. I apologize for that, but I am. I have to blow my own horn on this. Those folks don't work with animals in facilities like I do. They do not have the credentials that I do.
With all due respect, I apologize, but there is no inherent significant harm to those animals in our facility, not from being at that facility. That's my responsibility.
I completely got myself off track, senator. I do apologize. As for amendments to the current bill the word "criminal'' seems extreme to say the least. You have heard about the importance of engaging the public. Why would you not let a family see an animal that can't be released? Why would you not have a family engage in a healthy way with Chester, the false killer whale, who loves kids? He loves to go down to the window, blow bubbles at them, talk to them and then race away to do his own thing. Why would you not allow him to do that? Why would you not allow a family to go engage with that animal and then go away being inspired by that animal?
You have no idea how many kids come up to me and say, "I want to do what you do.'' I have a young girl named Avery who is seven years old now. This is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me, but her mom said at her birthday party that I'm cooler than Barbie. You have no idea what that means to me. That's the kind of inspiration we do. That's because it's not me. It's those animals.
That important engagement is undeniable.
Mr. Nightingale: We have looked at the bill. Marty addressed the criminality part. The problem is that the reason there are only two places in Canada to hold these animals in part is the expense. Memorial University used to have both cetaceans and pinnipeds, but the cost of keeping them in proper care has driven every university-held and federal government lab-held marine mammal out.
On the issue of display, the only way we can afford it is that that cost is amortized by the visitors and provides that the animals are available. For us visitation equals public engagement but then it facilitates the research and the rescue. The display part is problematic.
The transfer part is problematic because we are a giant country physically. We have a pretty small population. We only have two aquariums with marine mammals. We need to work collaboratively with those in the U.S., in Japan in particular, and in Europe. If we're going to keep cetaceans in the future, we may not have much reproduction because we're only two small institutions in Canada. Collectively, with the group of people managing the belugas certainly in North America wild captures is off the table. All the fear-mongering you have heard about wild capture is just that. It isn't happening. It hasn't happened in 20 years in North America. It won't happen. Ripping wild families apart and all that rhetoric is BS. It just isn't on the table.
However, if we're to have them in the future for both public engagement and science, then for those that can't go back to the wild — I'll use belugas as an example and you have heard about Marineland — Marineland keeps its beluga whales all together. That's the way they live in nature. That's the proper way to keep them in terms of their behavioural enrichment and making them happy. When you do that, sometimes babies happen. That's not a bad thing in terms of the long-term future.
To sum up, I can't figure out how you could amend the bill because the animal welfare issue is taken care of province by province. Marineland operates under the most rigorous regulations on the planet. The Ontario government has adopted the full Canadian Council on Animal Care standards and it has a rigorous inspection program. We operate under the B.C. government, but we also operate under CAZA accreditation, which has adopted the same standards. You could say ours is voluntary. Boy, if we ever decided we were not going to be accredited anymore, the public would kill us. We're not about to do that. It has the same effect as law.
I'm not sure why the criminalization provisions are in the bill. When I try to unravel that, the interconnections are so complicated that I'm not sure how you could write a sensible, federal act with anything more than a general intent.
The Chair: I am trying to give everybody an opportunity to ask a question. I want to advise of short questions and short answers now so we can move along as best as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I agree completely with the importance and virtues of institutions such as yours with regard to awareness-raising, and my concern is similar to Senator Gold's.
Bill S-203 deals with cetaceans specifically. We heard arguments that set out the particular biological characteristics of cetaceans, such as their great acoustic sensitivity, their habit of swimming for long distances, and their propensity for deep diving. Those are the reasons why this bill seeks to prohibit the confinement of cetaceans.
With regard to amendments, I think there could be cases where cetaceans that are injured or ill are kept because there are unable to reintegrate their natural environment. However, the other part of the act does not seem unreasonable to me at all.
I would also like to briefly address another point. Dr. Haulena, you speak blithely about the belugas in the St. Lawrence. I come from Rimouski, where there is a large concentration of St. Lawrence belugas, quite close to the Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski (ISMER), and the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute (MLI).
I spoke with Dr. Ariane Plourde, the former director general of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada MLI, who is now director general of ISMER. I would like you to send us your references, because you said that your research contributes enormously to the knowledge about belugas in the St. Lawrence. However, Dr. Plourde was unable to cite much research from your institution, or from the Vancouver Aquarium, concerning the St. Lawrence belugas.
[English]
Mr. Nightingale: The problems facing the St. Lawrence belugas are pretty well known. Historically, the population was about 12,000. When all hunting was stopped 10 or 12 years ago it was about 1,200 or 1,500, and the population continued to decrease down to somewhere around 800 today.
Scientists think there are four possible reasons. One is the shipping noise interrupting the mother calf bond at a certain time. You heard from Mr. Vergara talking about her research that started in the Vancouver Aquarium and is now in the St. Lawrence. Another is the issue of pollution, the food chain. Are they getting enough food? Are some of them starving to death? Pollution in general and particular kinds of contaminants get inside the body and build up. The fourth is diseases from climate change. Certain bacteria and viruses in the environment are moving north as the climate changes.
Our research program is directly involved in the acoustic side. We weren't involved in much, if any, of that research 20 years ago. It's been in the last 10 years that we've become involved in acoustic research. Three years ago, when Fisheries and Oceans eliminated their pollution and contaminant program, we hired one of their principal scientists. That's new research for us and you won't find any published literature in that recent term.
Research has to be collaborative. In Quebec, it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the provincial agency, and a non-profit called GREMM that are together coordinating things. We have joined that group. We can't do all research, but in certain areas where we have the expertise around acoustics, pollutants and now emerging diseases in the aquatic environment, those are three places where we do play a role.
I hope that answered the question.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I was well aware of the collaboration between the GREMM and our centre, but Dr. Haulena mentioned the specific participation of your organization. You answered my question. That's fine.
[English]
Dr. Haulena: There was a question about acoustics and harm of animals in aquariums due to acoustics that I want to address. I apologize for my flippancy but that seems a silly notion to suggest that noise in a pool system is any greater than noise anywhere else.
We know animals use echolocation. The only reason we know about echolocation is because that was described and figured out in an artificial habitat. We measure the animals' hearing all the time as part of their health assessments and research. We measure the ambient noise in pools. If you had a pool when you were a kid and your mother was yelling at you, what did you do? You went under the water because that shut down the noise. The idea that these things are somehow incredibly loud, disorienting habitats is absolutely wrong. It just seems sort of silly to me that people keep bringing that one up, but they do.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for your presentations. I have listened with interest to what you've said, and I have a million questions, quite frankly. I only have about 45 seconds to ask them.
I want to ask about the research that you've been doing. Have you done any research on the effects on belugas and cetaceans on captivity, and have you published that research?
Dr. Haulena: I'll take that one. It's going to take me a while. Obviously we have case reports on diseases that happen. For example, we have one coming out that one of our students is publishing on cancer in a 46-year-old whale that eventually died of uterine cancer which was very similar to the cancers the St. Lawrence beluga get. We are trying to put that in perspective.
We are keeping those case reports going, keeping records on how animals fair and cortisol levels. Those kinds of studies are out there. Typically, we collaborate on a lot of those. You will see us in the acknowledgements. There are a few studies looking at stress levels and comparing inflammation and immune response. Those are out there, not directly from us.
Does that answer your question in a very short way?
Senator Sinclair: It really was the question of whether you've published any research on the general issue of captivity and the effect of captivity of cetaceans.
Mr. Nightingale: Not that directly because that's not way science works. As he says, aspects of the whale immune system and how it changes will be published as part of a broader assessment of the whale immune system as an aspect of captivity.
In terms of one all-round study of what happens to animals in human care versus not in human care, there is a massive study beginning that involves 10 or 12 institutions, funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services in the U.S. We're part of that, but there never has been a single study simply on the effects or impacts of living in human care, as I say.
Behavioural studies are published in the behavioural literature. Immunological studies are published in the medical literature. Physiological studies are published in different literature. It's scattered all over the place. A lot of it is published but not in one single place.
Senator Sinclair: I have to admit that I'm not quite certain why the issue of public display is so large for you, given that the Vancouver Park Board has banned the Vancouver Aquarium from performance-related displays relating to the cetaceans in your care. Public displays of cetaceans were already indicated as a process that you were going to phase out by 2029. If I understand the aquarium's position, in 2029 you are going to phase out your beluga program.
If you wouldn't mind explaining to me, then, if you're intending on getting out of that business or out of that issue of displaying beluga whales, why is this such a large concern for you today?
Mr. Nightingale: Vancouver is an activist city. There are probably more activists than in any other city on the planet and have been there a long time. The park board hasn't passed anything yet. They asked that a bylaw be drafted and they haven't passed the bylaw. It will be considered on May 15.
Polls show that over eight out of ten Vancouverites want the rescue program to continue. The rescue program can't continue if you can't display the whales. Those whales rescued as youngsters and cannot go back to the wild have to live someplace. That's a DFO decision for a rescued animal, whether it can go back or not. If they live at the aquarium, people are going to see them and we're going to utilize them to interpret what they're doing and their natural history.
For whoever said "tricks,'' our whales have never done tricks. We do almost like an educational program with our visitors.
Because of the public sentiment in Vancouver, our lease on our current site is up in 2029. It's going to have to be renegotiated. We said to the park board, "If you think in your wisdom that the public demands and wants this to happen, first, we're going to test that hypothesis. That's what we're doing right now. Second, we want the 13 years to slowly phase out belugas and to give us time to develop other facilities.'' In other words, "Don't do it in a knee-jerk 180. The costs are astronomical and impossible.''
If the park board in its wisdom as stewards of the Vancouver government says, "No, that's what the public wants,'' we are challenging that. We don't think it's true. Secondarily, give us the time to transition so that our belugas can go somewhere else because all of the belugas we have are not going back to nature. They can't be released to nature so they have to go and live somewhere. Give us the time to develop that.
That was the principle behind what we call the compromise proposal we made to the city.
Senator Enverga: My kids love to watch those whales and now they want to study more about whales. However, my question is that one of our witnesses mentioned an alternative to having them in an aquarium is the sea pen. Can you tell me more about that, please?
Mr. Nightingale: That's a very popular and emotionally attractive concept at the moment. Martin can address animal care and sea pens, but there aren't any now in Canada. It's questionable whether it's a good thing to do, to put wild animals back in nature. Martin can talk about potential diseases and other issues. He will say you can't take as good care of them.
When you say to these people, "How are you going to make this financially,'' they say, "We're going to get donations to build it and then we're going to charge the public to come in and look at the animals to pay for its ongoing upkeep.'' It sounds like an aquarium to me, but when he tells you why it's not as good for the animals you think maybe this really isn't a good choice.
The practicality on top of that is that there aren't any, and I would be surprised if the Government of Canada ever wants that to happen because of the risk to nature.
Dr. Haulena: I have an expression that people who want sea pens are people who have never worked with sea pens. They are tricky. Are there animals that can do okay in a sea pen situation around the world? Absolutely there are places, especially where there is warm water and it is very clear, where you can see the animals very clearly and where some animals do okay.
I can't even begin to tell you about the permitting. If you can imagine the permits required to put in a fish farm or a new marina, that's what you're looking at to put in sea pens.
From an individual animal standpoint it is very species specific. As John alluded to, you can't keep non-native species in a sea pen. For example, Chester, our false killer whale, is a subtropical warm water dolphin. He was stranded on Vancouver Island in large part because he was in a place where he shouldn't have been, got separated from his mom, and was on the route to starvation being unable to survive in cold water. A cold water Pacific sea pen is not an ideal situation for him.
Certainly for acute care animals it's an absolute nightmare to deal with. You can't see them under water. You can't see very well any of those parameters you look for including vomiting, diarrhea, body condition, behaviour and what they're doing underwater. The incidence of ingestion of foreign bodies is much greater in sea pens as things float in and out that you can't control.
Non-native animals will be introduced to parasites and viruses they were not designed to be introduced to. We know what happens when you challenge a naive species with pathogens that they have not been evolved to deal with. Conversely, our animals have been living in an environment where they might introduce things to native species, which you also don't want.
There is also the issue of storms. I don't know if you know the story of Keiko the killer whale that people tried to rehabilitate, move to Iceland and put in sea pens there before a failed release. When the storms kicked up in there, it was incredibly dangerous to the animals and to folks trying to work under those conditions.
Can they work for some animals somewhere? Yes, there are pens in Florida and the Caribbean where animals do okay. Even those folks will tell you that sea pens are not ideal, particularly in the rehabilitation of animals, when an animal is sick and they really need to look at an animal, observe and deal with the animal.
Senator Christmas: Dr. Haulena, you mentioned that the cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium in your mind are happy. In a two-minute video from a documentary called Vancouver Aquarium Uncovered, a beluga whale swims end to end in a pool seven times in those two minutes. At that rate these belugas will be doing thousands of laps each day and that goes on for week after week, month after month, year after year.
In your view do captive whales and dolphins suffer lives of isolation, confinement and deprivation relative to whales and dolphins in the wild?
Dr. Haulena: Not in a good facility, not at all. Senator, I think you realize that movie had a bit of bias to it. The two minutes you saw was taken to design a strategic message for you. That animal doesn't do that 24 hours a day, all the time.
Does she swim? Yes, absolutely. Does she go into a sleep mode? Absolutely. As you know or may not know, dolphins and whales sleep in unihemispheric sleep where they sleep with half a brain shut off at a time. That was actually discovered in aquarium animals, obviously.
They do enter a pattern swim. Sometimes they'll sleep when they're just floating at the surface, especially belugas. They like to log. They're ice animals; they do stay at the surface.
You're not seeing a really representative idea of what that animal actually does all day long. The other side of the question was a repeat of whether it is harmful and do they lack socialization. No.
Is it different? It's absolutely different. Does your dog suffer because he's not running around in a pack of animals? No, your dog likes you. He likes his couch and he likes hanging around, and he loves when you interact.
If you're a good facility, you know how to interact with animals and you spend time with animals. You create a system where there are animals that get along with each other. You have the opportunity if animals are not getting along, which happens in the wild a lot, where you can adjust that social structure very easily.
That is very much a good animal husbandry person's responsibility to ensure that those animals are absolutely engaged all the time.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for your patience, senators. It has been an interesting discussion.
Before I give the floor to our guest, I would quickly ask for the record that our senators introduce themselves, beginning on my immediate right.
Senator Gold: Good morning. I am Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Senator Forest, Gulf region, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: My name is Fabian Manning, from Newfoundland and Labrador, chair of the committee, and last but by no means least we have:
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
The Chair: I understand our guest has some opening remarks. We will get to these right away and ask her to introduce herself.
I would advise senators that we have to be out of here by 10:05, so judge yourselves accordingly or I will.
The floor is yours.
Laurenne Schiller, Ph.D. student, Interdisciplinary Studies, (Marine Affairs), Dalhousie University, as an Individual): Good morning, senators. My name is Laurenne Schiller. I'm a Ph.D student at Dalhousie, and I'm in the Marine Affairs Program. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you here today. I don't get requests like this very often and I was quite touched by the invitation to come.
I realize this issue is incredibly polarizing and you have been bombarded with stats over the last couple of months. I promise you that while the information I am going to present today is not filled with numbers it won't interfere with my ability to stick to the facts.
I am a fisheries scientist. Although my life-long love affair with the ocean is neck deep in tuna fisheries policy right now, as everything in life it has had many ebbs and flows. For all the situations and decisions that led me to my current area of research, the origin of my desire to understand and protect marine life is irrefutably traceable to days spent with the belugas at the Vancouver Aquarium.
I have provided you with a supplementary document that goes into a bit more background on the details of my story. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read it when you can.
Those against the captivity of whales say there is no evidence that aquariums educate the public and inspire conservation behaviour. From my own experience I know this assertion to be false. Maybe there is no peer reviewed study that links a Ph.D student in Halifax to a beluga she first saw in Vancouver 25 years earlier. I can appreciate that such data are hard to come by, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I am one data point but I am one of many. Lots of my colleagues were also inspired by seeing whales in aquariums. Even Mr. Rose said the same of her friends a few weeks ago here.
If you're brave enough to walk through the galleries of the Vancouver Aquarium during spring break you will see why. They are buzzing with school groups in matching T-shirts and families from all walks of life from our country and from others. Sure, none of these kids are currently working for DFO or studying the impacts of climate change on sea ice or presenting at an UN conference on how bioaccumulation occurs in marine food webs, but I am confident that one day some of them will be.
I worked on site at the Vancouver Aquarium before moving to Halifax. I have seen the countless letters that our facility receives annually from children and adults who have been touched by their interactions with our cetaceans. When I was a little girl, I regularly sent in cards and money to Qila, so seeing all of this mail always makes me smile. It reminds me that kids today remain as moved as I was from first-hand observations and interactions.
In addition to kids sending in allowance money to the Marine Mammal Rescue Program, teachers tell about how a visit resulted in their class sponsoring a wild orca through the aquarium's affiliated adoption program. Guests from around the world thank us for giving them a chance to learn about animals they never would have had a chance to see otherwise.
At Ocean Wise community outreach events I've chatted with parents about how they no longer serve their kids fish sticks because they don't know where the fish is from and they are worried that it was caught in a way that harmed dolphins like our rescued dolphin Helen that lost her pectoral fins when she was caught in a gillnet.
Not only is it flat out wrong, but I think it is a disservice to human intelligence and heart to suggest that we only crave animals for entertainment and that the millions of people who visited the Vancouver Aquarium have learned nothing over the last six decades.
Last May, a couple of months before I left Vancouver, I got an email from John Nightingale asking for my opinion on something. He had been sent a handwritten letter from a little girl named Bethany. The letter was filled with facts and diagrams about what she knew of cetacean physiology and ecology, including how to tell the difference between male and female orcas based on fin height, how to identify a false killer whale, the size of whale pods, how high dolphins can leap, and many other accurate tidbits of information.
She was fascinated by our rescued false killer whale Chester and started learning everything she could about whales and dolphins. She was beside herself with excitement when she found out that she was old enough to start volunteering at the aquarium with her dad.
I spent an afternoon with Bethany and her family and was moved by her raw enthusiasm and curiosity for whales and dolphins. Naturally she reminded me of myself as a kid, but in addition to the happiness those memories brought our interaction gave me hope.
It gave me hope because in my current line of work I read a lot about what's wrong with the ocean. Talking with Bethany reminded me that the kids of today are the next stewards of our planet. It's unfortunate that humans have done a lot to mess up the natural world in the last century or so. Many wild cetacean populations are in rough shape, as are populations of many other species groups, both marine and terrestrial, but I believe attitudes can shift and are shifting for the better. The very least we can do for today's youth is to give them more, not fewer, opportunities for engagement than were provided to us because cleaning up the mess starts with inspiring people to learn and care about all of the creatures on this planet. Only then will they act to protect them.
I've watched the meetings on Bill S-203. I've gained much perspective from hearing the testimonies and comments from your various guests. To that end, I'd like to finish with one last thought before questions. During his visit, Mr. Laidlaw said something that I found interesting. He said that the average zoo visitor spends between eight and ninety seconds at an exhibit. He also suggested that there was no evidence for any connection happening between a person and an animal in captivity.
I would actually agree with Mr. Laidlaw's first point but disagree with his second because it didn't take eight seconds for me to fall in love with a beluga. It took less than one, and the connection that happened in that moment is the underlying reason why I do what I do today and why I want to spend of rest of my life in the field of marine conservation and research.
Senator Plett: I'll be brief. I have two questions for Ms. Schiller. Thank you for being here and for your great testimony. We have heard from some witnesses that educational opportunities such as whale-watching, documentaries and books are good alternatives to learning instead of seeing whales in captivity. I would like to know your perspective on that.
I'll go right into my second question, if that's alright, for the sake of time. You have said that many wild cetacean populations are in rough shape. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by saying they are in rough shape and explain why you think seeing whales in captivity can help to alleviate the problems from an educational standpoint?
Ms. Schiller: In following a lot of the conversation that's happened here, you do hear about the value of watching documentaries and going out whale-watching. I'm quite fortunate. I actually worked for a whale-watching company out of Vancouver for a season as well, so I can speak to that side of it.
I absolutely agree there is huge value in seeing animals in real life. I think that for the select few people who can afford to go on whale-watching trips that is a nice opportunity.
The company that I worked for offered only one type of tour. It was $300 a person for the day. It is out of the budget of most people, but I see value in being able to get out on the water. I also see the same value in being able to see a whale in an aquarium because you have that first-hand experience of getting as close to it as possible. There are concerns about some of the activities with whale-watching boats as well that I can talk about.
When you watch a documentary you're listening to someone else's narrative. As much as documentaries try to show natural activities of different animals, you are still following a script. You're following what that documentary wants to tell you. It is a movie. It is meant to be entertainment.
I see value in documentaries but I see so much value in being able to go and see an animal for yourself and to form your own ideas about that animal. Without someone else telling you everything about it in that moment, you can just see it. Then, if you're inspired to learn more, you can.
I have read many books and have seen many documentaries. I have seen whales in real life. These are incredible educational tools. Not everybody learns the same way, either. What might work for one kid reading a book, another kid may have no interest in reading a book and needs an educational opportunity in a different way. I think they all complement each other, to be honest.
Senator Plett: Elaborate on why you think seeing whales in captivity will alleviate wild cetacean populations being in rough shape.
Ms. Schiller: As Mr. Nightingale and Dr. Haulena talked about, there are several threats facing the St. Lawrence belugas. We are not entirely sure why their population has declined so rapidly. With the orcas off the Pacific coast, we have lost 70 whales since 1998 in the wild. There is a high instance of juvenile mortality in those.
Before whales started coming into captivity, orcas especially, there was this perception that they were killers or they were monsters. That public perception really changed when the first orca was brought into captivity in Vancouver actually.
Back even 60 or 70 years ago the main threat to whales in the wild was whaling. That has completely changed. The challenges that we face now are arguably greater with pollution, climate change and entanglements with fishing gear. Most of these are invisible threats to whale populations, with the exception of fishing gear. How do you get people to care about a whale dying from drowning because it couldn't get up to breathe through the sea ice? That's not something as vicious as whaling so how do you get people to care as much?
I think you need aquariums to help tell those stories. If you see a beluga in an aquarium and you read a bit about why they depend on sea ice in their life history and that the Arctic is changing faster than pretty much any place on earth, you make that connection.
Senator Plett: It's not relevant to this bill, but I heard on the news today there was another whale that washed up on shore in Halifax or somewhere in Atlantic Canada this morning.
Ms. Schiller: I read last year that over 20 humpbacks washed up along the eastern coast of the U.S. At least 10 of them had interactions with fishing gear, so there are a lot of threats to wild whales for sure.
Senator Gold: Welcome, thank you for coming and good luck with your studies.
Ms. Schiller: Thanks so much.
Senator Gold: Can I assume that you have taken a look at the legislation that we're studying?
Ms. Schiller: Yes.
Senator Gold: As I read it, and perhaps you can comment on this, the bill would still allow cetaceans to remain in captivity if they are incapable of being released to the wild.
Ms. Schiller: Yes.
Senator Gold: For that category of cetaceans, it would still be okay to display them so long it was not for a performance for entertainment purposes, unless that performance was authorized by an order of the lieutenant governor.
If I'm reading it correctly, the bill would still allow for cetaceans to remain in captivity if they are not released and to be displayed, not jumping through hoops but fed and otherwise exposed to children and families and the subject of research. Is my reading correct?
Ms. Schiller: The interpretation I had as well is that it makes provision for rescued and research animals.
Senator Gold: I'm struggling, as I think we all are, with doing the right thing if there are tweaks to the legislation that would allow research to continue. We have heard conflicting things about the importance of human contact with animals in aquariums. I appreciate your answer.
Ms. Schiller: Sure. To quickly follow up on that, if research on rescued animals is exempt it's a really good start. John and Marty pointed out before me the fact that it is the Criminal Code implies innately that having these animals is a bad thing. I disagree with the idea that it should be a crime to have cetaceans in captivity.
I know Marty can speak to this infinitely better than I can, but in order to be able to rescue them you need to be able to study them and understand them. I'm pretty sure that we at the Vancouver Aquarium have the capacity to rescue and rehabilitate because we had animals that weren't initially rescued and rehabilitated but we learned a lot from those animals.
Like Marty said, last year they were called up to the St. Lawrence because there was a juvenile beluga stranding. They were able to work with beluga because it is the same species. Personally, I don't like the notion that it is a crime, but I understand how bills are written.
Senator Enverga: I was touched by your presentation. My question is: What can you say to all the kids who have been watching those shows at the aquarium or seeing all these dolphins jump over hoops or maybe something like that? Tell me how you can inspire other kids to do the same as what you have been doing, to take care of our fish.
Ms. Schiller: Thank you for your question. To the whole show side of the aquarium, I know at our facility we really focus on natural behaviours. We don't put people in the water. We don't have hoops and fire and that kind of thing.
It's fundamentally important that we try to show as much natural behaviour as possible when we showcase our animals. Kids are going to be inspired in different ways.
Whether a little girl wants to be a Formula One race car driver or a gardener, she is going to get that inspiration however she gets it. As parents, guardians and teachers we need to encourage that learning. Just because you see something for the first time doesn't mean that it's going to change your life. I was lucky in my way that it did, but I had a huge support network.
I think that goes for any profession. You're never going to become something just because it happens the first time. You need that support in facilities like the Vancouver Aquarium where people can come back. Bethany comes back every week or every second week with her dad. She is talking to members of the public about what she knows about Chester. She is down there in the galleries and people can ask questions. It's about having a place where you can constantly come back. You can get a membership. You can come and see our animals anytime. You can come with your family. You can follow their stories online. You need a place where people can come like that and foster that love.
Senator Enverga: Do you see more support for our environment in that way?
Ms. Schiller: The Vancouver Aquarium does a phenomenal job of trying to connect the puzzle pieces. It's not just about some animals at a facility in Vancouver. They try to show the big picture.
I work part time for the Ocean Wise sustainable seafood program. In all of our shows, whether they are talking about the penguins or the belugas, they mention Ocean Wise. They mention the decline of different fish stocks and how this impacts the different animals you see at the aquarium. There are connections beyond those animals. Just because a mom decides to change her buying habits about seafood, we can't all grow up to be marine biologists or fishery scientists. They are simple everyday actions. Like John said, reduce the use of plastic bags or cut your beer holder plastic so it doesn't get wrapped around a sea lion's neck. There is that direct connection through pretty much all of the programs at the Vancouver Aquarium, regardless of the animal.
Senator Enverga: Some witnesses have told us that instead of going to an aquarium to watch National Geographic TV. What can you say about the assumption that watching National Geographic would be enough and we don't have to see the animals face to face?
Ms. Schiller: For some people maybe it is enough, but I would argue that for most you need to have some direct connection.
As I said to Senator Plett, when you're watching a documentary you are listening to what someone else is telling you and what someone else is showing you. I have read publications that say nature documentaries actually do a terrible job of educating people because they were meant to be entertainment. We're talking big documentaries like "March of the Penguins.'' There is huge criticism of that as a documentary but I have no doubt it inspired people.
My own personal experience is that you need to see something to love it.
Senator Christmas: I want to express my gratitude for your work and your career. It's very inspiring for me as a Nova Scotian to see young people embracing the sciences in such a wonderful way. Congratulations and the best of luck.
I had the privilege of growing up in two worlds, the Western world and the indigenous world. One of the privileges of being raised there is I get to share two points of view. When I hear the science side, I envision myself through my Western eye appreciating the work, the diligence and the effort into discovering knowledge.
At the same time I have to employ my traditional knowledge eye. What that tells me at times, not all times, but sometimes, is that there is a conflict between the two worlds. With that conflict I try to balance both. I try to see what is the greater value.
In this situation my Western eye tells me that cetaceans in captivity provide a value to science. As you have testified, it also provides an educational and inspirational value to young people who then go on and study other species. I find that good.
My traditional eye tells me that cetaceans are equal to human species, that they should be afforded dignity, freedom and the right to have a good life.
I've been to the Vancouver Aquarium. The problem I'm struggling with is when I see cetaceans in captivity my traditional eye tells me that it is instinctively wrong, that it is not right.
I am coming to my question. What I'm trying to weigh is the traditional value of valuing all life and all species and their freedom and dignity against the scientific value. In some ways I see the scientific value as being primarily for our species, for our education, entertainment and maybe for our inspiration.
The question I ask myself then is: What is most important for the beluga or the cetacean? What is more important, our educational value or their integrity and their dignity?
I'm putting you in a tough spot but you have witnessed these beautiful animals. In your assessment or in your professional capacity, do these cetaceans have the quality of life that they should have in captivity?
Ms. Schiller: That's a loaded question. Thank you, though. What I have gleaned from the last few months is that it is very much an ethical, scientific kind of thing, echoing Marty's idea between animal rights and animal welfare.
My experience is completely with the Vancouver Aquarium. I have never seen anything there that would make me think that those animals are suffering, are unhealthy or are living a life that is incomplete.
It gets back to my first point: Belugas in the wild are dying at really young ages and populations are in trouble. I would not necessarily even say that the wild is the healthiest place for a lot of animals these days.
I think most people either believe that no animal should be in captivity, whether it's a bird, a tarantula or a frog. A completely ethical viewpoint is that no animal should be under human control. When we're talking about whales, dolphins and porpoises, I do not believe that their lives in captivity are compromised when they are getting the absolute best care in the world. That's my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Congratulations! What you have to say is very interesting. It is motivating and stimulating to examine biodiversity issues from a global perspective. In the current context, this is a fundamental issue.
Regarding Bill S-203, Senator Gold was wondering if there were amendments needed. It seems clear that criminalizing certain things is important. We should perhaps specify that the criminal aspect applies to the capture of animals in their natural environment, for financial purposes or for the purpose of producing shows that generate income. This applies to cetaceans specifically. Just as in life in general certain individuals are forced to live in treatment centres because they are not autonomous and cannot live in society, the same thing can happen to animals. Some cetaceans may be sick and not be able to survive in their natural environment. We could keep them in captivity. Do you think that criminalizing the capture of wild animals in their natural environment is reasonable?
Ms. Schiller: Thank you.
[English]
I can stress this now. I don't agree with ever taking healthy whales from the wild for aquariums. Capturing any species to put it in captivity, I believe is wrong. The Vancouver Aquarium hasn't taken healthy whales from the wild in over 20 years.
If that's an amendment that could be agreed upon, that there won't be any capture of wild whales, that's reasonable for sure.
There is a lot of potential misunderstanding, not here but in the public, especially about the Vancouver Aquarium, that we just bring in whales from the wild and have them doing tricks and these sorts things. That's just wrong. We were the first aquarium in the world to say that we'll never take whales from the wild again. We don't support those practices because we have learned that they have these close family groups.
No wild capture is good in my books.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So that is an amendment that could in your opinion make this bill more acceptable?
[English]
Ms. Schiller: Yes, no wild capture would be more acceptable as opposed to no display in my opinion.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you for being here, Ms. Schiller. I have to admit that my sense of your judgment was impacted by the fact that you moved from Vancouver to Nova Scotia, so I begin with that. I'm looking at my Nova Scotia colleague here.
Your answer to the last question intrigued me because in fact one of the primary intentions behind the legislation is to prevent the capturing of healthy animals or healthy cetaceans and placing them into captivity for the purpose of display and financial income and entertainment. I appreciated your answer to that.
You're continuing to do research as part of your Ph.D work, right?
Ms. Schiller: Yes, but I don't study whales unfortunately.
Senator Sinclair: What is the nature of your research?
Ms. Schiller: In a nutshell, I look at the international management of tuna fisheries, specifically Regional Fishery Management Organizations and how they develop policies or try to develop policies that look at the conservation of the stocks under their jurisdiction.
I'm also really interested in the role of eco-certification bodies like the Marine Stewardship Council. I am interested in seeing how eco-certifications and RFMOs work together because one is a public and one is a private governance tool. I'm curious to see if it's actually beneficial or detrimental for conservation. I have only done one year and that may change entirely because it's a really big question. I'm just really interested in the management of tuna fisheries.
Senator Sinclair: Good luck with that. Sounds like an interesting area of study.
Ms. Schiller: Thanks so much.
Senator Sinclair: The issue of climate change was mentioned by you, as it was by the previous witness, and the impact of climate change on cetaceans in the wild. I wonder if you might confirm what the foundation of that answer might be. Have you had a chance to look at the studies that talk about the impact of climate change upon cetaceans in the wild?
Ms. Schiller: Very briefly and only out of interest. I don't study climate change and whales. Most of what I have read looks at changes in distribution in the Arctic, mostly to do with belugas and how the changing Arctic is going to influence increased activities up there through shipping and drilling and what that might mean for whale populations.
There are a lot of unknowns to do with climate change. We're seeing whales like Chester off of the Pacific coast. He shouldn't be there. We had a sea turtle wash up. Again it should not have been there. We are seeing a lot of things happening, probably due to climate change.
I can speak to the fish side. We do know that fish populations are changing their distribution as a result of climate change. They are moving poleward, so farther north and south away from the equator as waters are warming. Whales eat fish, so we can probably assume at some point whales will change their distribution as well. They might be in areas that were never previously inhabited by whales. What will this mean for different human interactions like fishing, shipping and all those kinds of activities? There are a lot of unknowns.
The ocean is an ecosystem and everything is connected. You pull one thing over here and it affects something down there. For sure there are a lot of unknowns. I wish I could answer you better. I'm sorry.
Senator Sinclair: You indicated in one of your answers that you were concerned about the criminalization of taking animals into captivity. The Criminal Code section that is being amended here is the section on cruelty to animals. You don't have any concern, I would imagine, to trying to control the question of cruelty to cetaceans, right?
Ms. Schiller: Right.
Senator Sinclair: It is whether or not this amounts to that, to what extent this might be captured by that.
Ms. Schiller: Sure.
Senator Sinclair: Is that the issue for you?
Ms. Schiller: I don't fundamentally equate captivity with cruelty.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I noted your particular interest in tuna. You probably know that there is a strong resurgence of tuna in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and in Chaleurs Bay. I invite you to come and observe it on site.
[English]
Ms. Schiller: I'm familiar with bluefin tuna around P.E.I. There has been an increase in large tuna being seen off the coast of P.E.I. Nobody is really too sure why.
Because they are able to regulate their body temperature, bluefin are found more north than a lot of tuna species. We do see them in Canadian waters, especially on the Atlantic. Yes, there are documents of tuna being found in places that weren't traditionally there. We don't know necessarily if that means the stock is rebounding or these fish are shifting their distribution in response to something in their environment, whether it's climate related or prey related.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, and thank you to our witness for your presentation this morning. It is a pleasure to hear of your life-long interest in the work you do. We wish you all the best and thank God that your nana suggested you send a card to Qila way back then.
Ms. Schiller: A wise woman.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)