Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 17 - Evidence - May 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 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 5:42 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I'm pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before I give the floor to our witness, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt, Nunavik.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Thomas McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its 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, by video conference, Dr. Lanny Cornell, doctor of veterinary medicine. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for joining us today. I understand you have some opening remarks, following which members of the committee, I am sure, will have some questions for you.
Just to advise committee members, when we are finished our session here, we will be going in camera for a few moments to discuss some future business. I will be looking for a motion to that effect, but we'll leave that until the end.
Dr. Lanny Cornell, as an individual: I'm a veterinarian with more than 40 years of experience with marine mammals in captivity and also in the wild. I've taken care of all kinds of other animals around the world, so if there are any questions you want to ask about some zoological animals, I know a bit about them, too.
I don't know why, personally, you would have any reason to want to close Marineland or stop the animals being displayed at a place like Marineland. To me, it's like a jewel or a diamond in a setting that is quite spectacular.
I don't know how many of you have been to Marineland and have seen the facilities there, but they're incredible. They're very large. The water is crystal clear and clean. Most of the animals have been there for a long time. They reproduce in captivity with great ability. There are approximately 50 beluga whales there now, most of which have been reproduced in captivity in the environment there.
I don't see anything except, to me, a jewel in the crown of Canada when you talk about Marineland in Niagara Falls, Canada.
If you have questions that I can answer specific to the issues, I would certainly be happy to answer those. That's probably a good place for you to start.
The Chair: It sounds good. They were very precise opening remarks. We will get right to our questions.
Senator Plett: Welcome, Dr. Cornell. As you know, I have visited Marineland and I certainly agree with the comments you made about the facility there. I think it's a great facility as well.
However, let me ask you a few questions if I could, Dr. Cornell. In February of this year, you were tasked to conduct a report investigating claims of many marine life activists concerning the condition of Marineland's facilities, as well as the physical and medical conditions of both marine and land animals therein.
Could you summarize for the committee the conclusions of this report and comment as to whether or not these claims have any substance? I have one or two follow-up questions since the opening comments were very short, but perhaps you could start there, Dr. Cornell.
Dr. Cornell: Sure. I went to Marineland last February and had a look around for a couple of days. I went through all of their facilities, their laboratories, all their records, and examined the animals visually. I didn't put my hands on any of them, but frankly I didn't see anything there that would require me to do any kind of physical examination on the animals because they all appeared to be in very good health.
I looked at their records. All the records appeared to be in good condition. The blood works and so forth on the animals were all in the excellent category, so I couldn't see any reason for anybody to be making any types of accusations against any care of the animals there at Marineland. I was a bit appalled and taken aback by some of the commentary that I had heard was made.
Senator Plett: In your professional opinion, does the veterinary program at Marineland provide substantial medical care for the cetaceans in their trust?
Dr. Cornell: Absolutely, it does. Veterinarians and staff there are well qualified to take care of marine animals. The trainers and the animal care people, for the most part, have been around for quite some years. Some of the people there have taken care of the same animals for over 30 years, maybe more.
They also have access to the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph for any help they might need for special examinations, surgical procedures and those sorts of things. You're talking about an institution that has access to one of the finest universities in the world for veterinary medicine. I can't see where the problem would lie.
Senator Plett: I have one last question for this round. Dr. Cornell, we understand from time to time that marine animals, like any other animal, die in captivity. Would you be able to comment on the deaths of marine animals in captivity at Marineland and compare that to the deaths of the same kind of animals in the wild? Can you draw a correlation between the two?
Dr. Cornell: That's an interesting question. I've looked at a lot of these wild animals and I've looked at many of the marine animals in various institutions around the world. In the well cared for facilities, the death rates with those animals are far less than they would be in the wild.
The fact is that there are probably, for instance, 150,000 beluga whales in the Canadian and Arctic waters at this time. Those are estimates that are fairly current, I believe. Of the couple of dozen animals that were, for instance, taken to Marineland, there have been one or two deaths over long periods of time; but their mortality rate is probably less than 5 per cent as compared to a 15 per cent to 25 per cent loss in the wild. Again, I don't see where the problem might lie.
Certainly animals die in captivity and certainly animals die in the wild. If you go to the news media, recently, on the West Coast of the United States and Canada and on the East Coast of the United States and Canada, you'll be reading about whales and dolphins that have come ashore to die, have floated ashore dead or have been found missing from groups of animals that had been studied quite significantly. There is no question that death occurs in the wild as well. Everything dies. We're all going to die. All the animals in the world are going to die, eventually. It's part of life; it's part of the journey.
Senator Hubley: Dr. Cornell, I apologize for not hearing your opening remarks and hope that I will not be asking questions you're not prepared to answer. I would like to thank you, of course, for appearing before our committee today.
As you will know, our committee has been studying this legislation for a number of weeks now. We have heard from a variety of witnesses, including marine mammal scientists, marine biologists and experts in cetacean behaviour. Many of these witnesses have told us that cetaceans simply do not thrive in captivity. They have lower birth rates. They may live shorter lives and may exhibit abnormal behaviour. We've heard about logging at the water surface and swimming in repetitive patterns. We've seen photos of the results of other abnormal behaviour in damaged teeth and rake marks. This is an emotional topic for many on both sides.
What do you say to the experts who believe it is cruel to keep whales in captivity, particularly for entertainment purposes?
Dr. Cornell: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, certainly. The keeping of animals in aquariums and zoos around the world has been one of the most spectacular events. We started out learning a great deal about these animals. We used to say, for instance, when I first started with marine animals, that our journey with these animals was like going to the moon almost every day because we were learning so much new on a regular basis. To be honest with you, we're still learning a great deal more about marine animals and fish and so forth in the ocean on a regular basis as a result of animals in zoos and aquariums.
I referred to the death rates of these animals before. I will use them a great deal because it's so obvious, even to somebody who is a novice and doesn't understand a living creature. When you bring a few beluga whales to a place like Marineland, where you have maybe a total of 18 or 20 animals, a dozen or so to start with, they all reproduce to the point where you have 50 or so animals at that park today. We are expecting babies up there, second generation children of the animals that were first brought there to Marineland in the early stages.
I don't see how anybody could say that they have a higher death rate or incidence of illness or anything like that. The animals up there appear to be thriving. To me, when you look at those animals underwater through that glass, you see a conglomeration of beluga whales that's much more spectacular than what you can see in the wild because you're looking at the surface, not from the bottom.
These animals are swimming around and playing and interacting with one another and breeding. They are literally thriving in that environment. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Hubley: Could I have a another question to follow up?
The Chair: Yes, go ahead, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: As you may know, Ontario passed legislation similar to this bill two years ago, in May 2015, that bans the buying, selling or breeding of orcas. We have also heard about California passing legislation in September 2016 that bans the captivity and breeding of killer whales. SeaWorld there supported the ban on breeding.
Earlier this month, France banned keeping cetaceans in captivity, as well as the breeding of those already kept in captivity. The Stanley Park board has just approved new bylaws that will prohibit the display of cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium.
I know that you have vast experience with killer whales, given your previous work. Given their similarities, why shouldn't we extend the way we treat orcas to other cetaceans?
Dr. Cornell: I'm not sure that the ban on the breeding of killer whales was the smartest thing to do. I'm not sure that taking them off display is a smart thing to do.
When I first started caring for marine animals, such as killer whales, they were used very frequently by the military and the navy as target practice with guns. I personally have removed bullets from two killer whales that were recently brought in from the wild. I'm sure, if we allow the public to drop off the education line regarding killer whales and dolphins, we're going to see a lot more mishandling of the animals in the future than we certainly do now.
There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of marine animals out there in the world today that weren't there 30, 40 or 50 years ago. All of the populations have exploded in recent times because of the wild protection that they've been given. I don't see that not having them in captivity is a very smart thing to do.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your answers.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your short presentation, Dr. Cornell.
My question is: Awhile ago you mentioned that the mortality rate of belugas in the wild is a lot higher than the ones in Marineland. Can you possibly let us know why it is happening like that? Is it better in Marineland than in the wild?
Dr. Cornell: Of course, the whales and dolphins in Marineland are not subject to predation by killer whales or sharks or disease or parasites. They are all pretty much clean of parasitic diseases. Almost all the animals that you see in the wild that come ashore, where you see the animals beaching themselves on sandy beaches or on rocks and so forth, are the result of some form of disease that they have picked up in the wild. Most of the time, from my experience on necropsies, those diseases are parasites. Parasites actually get into their ears and into their brains, and they will almost liquefy the central nervous system of the animals, making it impossible for them to survive in the wild.
I have done, as I said, necropsies on a number of animals over the years and found these parasites to be, frankly, nauseating. At Marineland and places like Marineland, the parasites have been eliminated from their diet. They've been eliminated from the animals' bodies with medications, so for the most part those types of problems don't occur at places like Marineland like they would in the wild.
In addition, you have environmental problems in the wild that will create mass deaths of animals in Canada, in Canadian waters. There have been instances where beluga whales have been stranded on the beaches up there by the hundreds, baby ones, small whales of less than a year old, as a result of severe cold spells that occur when the animals are in birthing areas in shallow water in Hudson Bay and those areas.
The wild is not at all a very friendly place for these animals, but they do survive. They survive in the hundreds of thousands in many cases.
Senator Enverga: Another question that I have would be: I assume that you have been to different facilities or aquariums all over the world.
How would you compare the facilities here in Canada with those in the rest of the world?
Dr. Cornell: I think the facilities that you have at Marineland, as I said, are the gem of the ocean. I can't fathom there are too many places in the world I've visited that have anywhere near the quality of care facilities and pools and clean water as Marineland has. Those facilities there are state of the art. They are way beyond it in some cases, way beyond state of the art.
I don't know if you have seen the facilities, but you can literally read a newspaper clear across a 50-foot span of water in those pools. It's quite incredible what they have done there with keeping the water clean for those animals.
Senator McInnis: Let me refer you to an interesting quote you said made on Bill 80, which was passed through the Ontario legislature:
I have . . . removed bullets from at least three killer whales and . . . other types of marine mammals which were shot and wounded in the wild.
Further, it is interesting to note, you say:
. . . since the display of killer whales in facilities such as Marineland . . ., the number of animals killed or shot in the wild has decreased considerably. .
Do you remember saying that?
Dr. Cornell: Oh, absolutely, there is no question about that, sir. The U.S. Navy, in Washington waters a number of years ago and as late as the 1960s, were using these animals for target practice in the wild. They were using 50-calibre machine guns and rifles and so forth off of boats to shoot at them.
I've personally seen navies in various parts of the world using marine mammals as target practice from the shore, just to see if they can hit them. These places have definitely made an awareness of marine animals in the wild extremely high profile as compared to what they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
Senator McInnis: There is no more target practising. Is that it?
Dr. Cornell: Obviously, I'm not around all the oceans of the world to see this, but I can tell you that since the 1960s I have not seen an animal brought out of the wild that had a bullet in it, whereas during the 1960s I did.
Senator McInnis: Is that the basis for the comment?
Dr. Cornell: I think so. When you bring these animals to the public view and people fall in love with petting a dolphin at a place like Marineland, viewing a beluga whale, seeing a killer whale up close, interacting with the trainer and being friendly, all of a sudden this is no longer a monster creature that you can go out and say that you want to have them killed or get rid of them.
I believe there are so many marine animals in the wild in certain places now that they are being considered to be culled because they are damaging things like salmon fisheries and so forth.
There is no question in my mind that SeaWorld, Marineland, Marineland of Los Angeles many years ago, and places all over the world have done a tremendous job at educating the public about how you can fall in love with these animals of the sea that no one sees on a very regular basis.
Senator McInnis: They're fed fish. What is the quality of the water in which they are housed?
Dr. Cornell: It's incredible. In places like Marineland the water quality is far better as far as overall quality. Understand it's seawater or saltwater, not freshwater, but the water that you drink out of a faucet or a bottle is not anywhere near as clean or as crystal and filtered and taken care of as the water in places like Marineland.
Senator McInnis: Are they well fed?
Dr. Cornell: The food is as good or better than human consumption food. It is taken right off the ships when it has been caught. It is frozen immediately. It is packaged in boxes and kept frozen in temperatures that kill parasites and keep bacteria from growing. The food is thawed out just before it is fed to the animals. Sometimes it still has few ice crystals in it, which is really good as far as consumption by the animals is concerned.
The food is high quality. If we all ate food as fresh as that even from supermarkets and so forth, we would all probably be a lot better off.
Senator McInnis: You've been associated with Marineland for some time.
Dr. Cornell: I don't work there, sir. I guess you could call me an adviser to the Marineland people. I have known Mr. John Holer, the owner of Marineland, since I ran across him totally by accident many years ago. I have to tell you there is no one else who dedicates his life, his fortune, his intelligence and his ability to care for these animals. I've never seen anybody like him, frankly. I've never seen anybody who works any harder at caring for his creatures than he does.
Senator McInnis: We saw him here the other week. He seemed like an honourable gentleman. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Senator Eggleton already asked my question. However, what I took away from Dr. Cornell's comments was that all whales and dolphins should live in aquariums, in captivity, because they would be better off.
[English]
Senator Munson: I'd like to get back to why we are here and why we have been studying this for the last couple of months. It seems like the last couple of years. There have been emotional opinions on both sides of the fence. You are certainly very committed to Marineland and the idea of having these animals in captivity. As you say, they're being well cared for.
I'd like to get back to the bill itself. I think we're missing something here. Bill S-203 would make this sort of captivity an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years in terms of creating offences respecting cetaceans in captivity and so on and so forth.
Just to get it on the record, have we been wasting our time in your estimation of having this very long discussion about this issue? There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. You're either for it or against it, so I would like to have you on the record. We have to vote on this and this will impact industry. It will impact people's lives. It certainly creates a very strong debate in Parliament, but this has been going on for some time.
What's your view? Should we just say we don't need this bill, everyone is happy, the fish are happy, the water is clean and the people who go see them are happy, and so on and so forth?
Dr. Cornell: I think the short answer to your question would be, yes, I think you're wasting your time, personally. That's my personal opinion, but I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's the nice thing about being alive in the free world, isn't it?
There are pluses and minuses for a place like Marineland, with all the education that they have carried out over the years and all the education they have the capability of producing in future years. If you take the economic aspect of it, something no one ever talks about, the animals in these zoos and aquariums are extremely expensive to maintain, extremely expensive to bring to the environment and extremely expensive to breed. Why would you want something bad to happen to them? To me, it doesn't make any sense at all to even question that. Everyone wants to keep them alive and in the best health possible.
If you look at the economic aspects of how many jobs would be lost, how many tax dollars would be lost, how many facilities would be torn down and how many hotels would go out of business because a place like Marineland wasn't there any more, to me those are also important things. I'm a businessman. I've been in three or four successful businesses over the years and I know what it takes to make a dollar and I also know what it takes to spend a dollar.
Frankly and very honestly, it's an issue that can be handled on the aspect of what is humane and caring for the animals, but stopping them from being in an environment like this, stopping the breeding program, stopping the education of the public and stopping the exposure of people to fall in love with these animals, the answer is yes, I think you're wasting your time.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being so candid. I appreciate that.
You also believe there are enough safeguards presently within the industry to care for these animals in captivity. In other words, self-policing is good enough for you.
Dr. Cornell: I think the zoological community in Canada and the United States polices itself very well. In order to be a member of any of these organizations that oversee zoological parks, from the standpoint of their own businesspeople, trainers and caretakers involved, they police themselves quite readily.
If you add to that independent oversight from places like a humane society or the trainer facilities and organizations and so forth, they're very capable of policing themselves. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws that govern these things, but I don't think they should go to the extreme of putting these people out of business or taking the animals out of captivity.
Senator Munson: There is a school of thought in some quarters that these animals in captivity could be put in an area where they are cared for and not part of the big show. They could be in similar kinds of environments like Marineland but adjacent to saltwater and that sort of thing. They would be cared for by people of strong reputations in the science industry and this kind of industry, but it doesn't have to be a come as you pay kind of thing: "Here is $20 and you can see Mr. and Ms. Dolphin jump up and down and chase fish.'' That is that view by some people.
Would that be a compromise, or do you think, now that we've come this far, they should be put on display, as you say, in education but primarily some people would say as entertainment?
Dr. Cornell: There is no question that entertainment is involved. I wouldn't want to hide that from you at all. By the same token, you can educate very clearly and efficiently by using entertainment. That's one of the best forms of education that could possibly be done. Some good schools around the world are actually using a lot of different kinds of entertainment to teach people. There are very entertaining plays and movies that teach people.
Would it be possible to put them in sea pens and that sort of thing? Of course it would. Would it be the same as having them in an environment like Marineland? No, not at all. It wouldn't be anywhere near it. You would not be able to interact closely with the animals and you wouldn't be able to see them very well, because the water quality would not lend itself to that type of environment.
To be honest with you, the types of facilities that we're capable of building today and in the future will make sea pens and those sorts of things quite obsolete as far as the quality of water and the quality of life for the animals that might partake.
Look at the science and the ingenuity of things we're running into on a daily basis, such as automated cars that drive themselves, airplanes that fly themselves, and rockets that go to the moon and Mars. Think of where we're going to be with all kinds of technological skills, regardless of whether it's marine mammals or anything you might want to mention. In 10, 15 or 20 years, the world is going to be a different place completely.
We're not talking about sitting still. We are not talking about having animals cared for the same way today as we have been caring for them for the last 20 or 30 years. Every single year is a new adventure. Every single year is a new development. Every single year is a new facility that could be built to house the animals in a better way.
No, I think that going backward to sea pens is not the right way at all.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much, doctor.
Senator Gold: Thank you, doctor, for your presence and the clarity of your presentation.
I quite agree with you that our understanding of our responsibility to animals and our affection for animals, especially mammals and cetaceans, have evolved over the decades, but so too has our understanding of what counts as a quality of life for these animals under our care.
Leaving aside those cetaceans that cannot be released into the wild, do you have any concerns about the quality of life for cetaceans in captivity as compared to what they may have experienced were they in the wild with more room to swim and fewer restrictions on their activities?
We've heard testimony from witnesses on all shades of the continuum, some of whom acknowledge there is a trade- off to be made here. I wonder if you could comment on quality of life beyond simply the quality of the water and the quality of the food.
Dr. Cornell: I don't think there is any question about there being a trade-off. There are a lot of things we can do and will be doing in facilities like Marineland, but there are also a lot of negatives about having animals in the ocean that, as I said before, exposed to parasites, bad food, bacterial infections and things that they'll never see in captivity.
Here is what's interesting to me: We can have animals in an ocean environment and animals in a captive environment like Marineland or the Vancouver Aquarium. We have hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes millions of people, a year who are able to see these animals up close and learn about them in a way that you just can't from a movie or television. It's being with them in person, smelling them, listening to them breathe, and watching them splash and swim around the water.
I hate to repeat myself, but if you look at facilities like Marineland, they have 50 beluga whales there now. These have reproduced from less than a dozen or so that originally showed up at Marineland from the importation of the animals some years ago.
All of this is done with their breeding in captivity because they want to. They're happy, healthy animals. This is what they do when they're happy and healthy. Animals that are not healthy, happy and well adjusted will not reproduce in captivity as they have done at Marineland.
Just the exhibition of the animals tells the story right there, that the facility is good. It may not be as good as it might be in 10, 20 or 30 years from now, but we're learning on a daily basis. There is not a day that goes by that I do not ask myself, "What can we do better?'' When I say "we,'' I mean everybody in the world who cares for animals. What can we do better to make their lives more perfect for them?
Senator Gold: To follow up, it is true that in the wild animals might be exposed to risks, parasites and the like; so too of other sentient beings including our own species. However, we would never assume that it's better to keep people in bubbles and in isolated environments simply because we could protect them from the risks of daily life.
We have cetaceans in captivity that could be released in the wild. In some of your earlier writings there have been successful examples of cetaceans being released to the wild. By what moral right do we as humans keep them in captivity if they could survive in the wild, given that life is full of risks? Are they not entitled to live in the wild as nature so provided?
Dr. Cornell: Of course they are. What you have just said is exactly what we've talked about.
There are risks being in the wild and there are risks being in the captive environment. Some of these animals took the risk and ended up in a captive environment. Yet, they are being treated very well. Having them released to the wild, yes, I have been involved with several of animals that were released to the wild. Some went well and some didn't go so well.
I don't see why we would stop sending rockets to the moon or Mars, or driving totally automated cars or having airplanes that fly themselves, just because it's more dangerous for people to be involved in those things.
I have the opinion that it's good for humanity to be able to see these animals in a good quality environment being handled and cared for very well, allowing us to be able to teach the public about these animals in the ocean that they'll never see up close any other way.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
Dr. Cornell: Let me just add one more thing. I think you asked a very good question there. As humans, we have a considerable intelligence and ability to reason about things. What we've learned by having animals in captivity is that these animals have a tremendous ability to reason, to make decisions and to figure things out, too.
I'm not saying they have IQs in the hundreds, but they certainly have IQs in double digits somewhere. I wouldn't know how to measure that. What I am saying is that I've seen all kinds of different animals. Dogs, cats, cattle, horses, whales and dolphins have an amazing ability to do some reasoning and thinking. I guess you could call it thinking. That is something that I think we have learned more about because we have the animals in this environment as opposed to not having them.
Senator Gold: Doesn't that give you some pause about our right as humans in control to dictate, for our own education and for our own entertainment, how these thinking sentient animals will live?
It seems to me that 50 years ago or 100 years ago we simply saw the animal kingdom as objects for our use and manipulation. I'm not making the case that they're persons in any large legal sense, but our understanding of them has evolved. Their capacity to think and react is much greater than we ever assumed. Doesn't that give you pause about our right to simply use them for our own benefit?
Dr. Cornell: If we use them for an educational process and some entertainment, and we use them in a way that causes the rest of the world to be treated in a positive way, regardless of whether or not it's human, I really don't it is a sacrifice. I think the animals are treated well and are happy. They don't think of it that way.
You could ask, "Do we have the right to do that?'' I don't know. I can't answer that question. I don't think you can, either. I think it's a matter of judgment. It is a matter of opinion, as I said earlier. Everybody has their own opinion. One of the ways we live in a free world is that we are able to have these opinions, but I don't think the people who have a different opinion from me should have the right to tell me that I can't take care of animals and care for them properly, just because they don't believe it can be done.
Why would they dictate that to me? Why would they have to do that to the public, the millions of people who come to places like Marineland? Why would they dictate that kind of thing when there's really not any real reason to do that except that somebody, somewhere along the line, thinks they have the right not to be in captivity?
Do we have the right to confine our children in schools? Do we have the right to take their freedom away when the natives in the Pacific Islands allow their children to grow and run and have all the freedom in the world? Do we have that right? What really is the difference between locking our children up in school for 12, 18, or 20 years to learn when they could be out there in the world experiencing everything and not really having to go to school but just experiencing life? I don't see that it's terribly different, really.
Senator Sinclair: Dr. Cornell, you're a curious man to me. The research I have about your background shows that you worked very diligently to free Willie, so to speak, the orca who was the twin of the one at SeaWorld, I think, that was found to have killed a trainer.
Could you explain to the members of the committee why you took it upon yourself to work so diligently to free him and return him back to captivity if you believe, as you told everyone here, in the propriety of keeping whales in captivity?
Dr. Cornell: Keiko was an interesting animal in that the facility he was in originally in Mexico was no doubt substandard for a killer whale. Maybe for a small dolphin it would be fine but not for a killer whale.
When I first became involved in that project, it was for the reason of bringing him out of the facility in Mexico to a modern facility in Newport, Oregon. We did that. We loaded him and transported him, with the most modern technology available, to his new home in Newport, Oregon. It was clear to me at that point that he was becoming a very healthy animal. I really had no argument against taking him back into the wild.
You have to understand he was an animal that was offered to a number of organizations around the world before he left Mexico, to be brought into their facilities and housed with other killer whales, and not one of those facilities accepted him. They did not take him when he was offered. Therefore, to me he became a totally different issue, because the people that were spending the money on rescuing him from Mexico were fairly adamant about wanting to take him and trying to release him to the wild.
I got on board with those people after discussing with them and finding out that they were extremely sincere. I don't regret anything I did there with Keiko. We released a large whale from another facility many years ago in California that was accidentally recaptured again about 10 years later. That animal had grown four feet and was really king of the roost out in the ocean at that point.
The possibility that an animal like that could be re-released in the wild certainly exists. I'm not saying it could be done with every single animal. It probably shouldn't be done with every single animal, especially those born in captivity, because they have never had the opportunity to learn about how to survive in the wild, but there might be specific cases where you might want to re-release or attempt to re-release an animal in the wild.
I'm not sure, sir, if that answers my question, but that's the way I look at it.
Senator Sinclair: It doesn't quite, but it's good enough. Thank you.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for your testimony today, Dr. Cornell. I'm interested in the role that facilities like Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium play in the conservation of endangered species.
I understand that at Marineland five Black Sea bottlenose dolphin females are being housed. If this bill is passed, they will not be able to bring in a male to mate with these females. They're of the perfect breeding age, I understand, and that species is listed as endangered on the red list. There are only 3,000 left in the wild and 200 of them are in captivity in various places around the world. There is a plan to keep the species genetically diverse. All these different organizations want to work together on saving that particular species which is under threat.
Do you have any experience with those particular dolphins at Marineland? Are you concerned that if this bill goes through, any possibility of them breeding and helping with the re-establishment of the species will be lost?
Dr. Cornell: Frankly, you've answered your own question. It's very clear to me you understand that without captive breeding programs like the ones at Marineland, there could be severe losses of animals over the period of time in the future as some of these environments they live in become less hospitable to them, like the Black Sea.
Let's look at the vaquita dolphin in the Gulf of Mexico, below California. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that particular species, but there are only about 30 of them left in the wild. There have been attempts at gathering some of these animals together in places where they could possibly breed them and help re-establish the species.
This has been done, for instance, from captive environments like the Los Angeles and San Diego zoos with the California condor. The animals were gone from the wild. They did not exist at all. All they had were a couple of eggs they were able to bring in from the wild and hatch in captivity. From that, they have raised any number now of California condors — frankly, I've lost track — and re-released those animals to the wild and re-established the California condor population in California, with protection, of course.
When I first started working with marine animals like the vaquita dolphin and the Black Sea dolphin, one of the goals I had set for myself was to be able to breed these animals in a captive environment so that they would not have to be brought in from the wild any longer and that we would be able to study them and figure out how to better care for them in the wild, using the knowledge we gained with these animals in the captive environment.
Frankly, you have answered your own question. How will you do that if you don't have them the in a captive environment? It would be nearly impossible. It is very important for us to be able to bring these animals in from the wild and study them and learn how to care for them so that we can in certain cases re-establish those populations in the wild.
Senator Raine: I agree, and I am very concerned about this legislation and its impact on exactly that.
Another thing that concerns me is a bit of a red herring. People shouldn't be able to commercialize or make money on showing captive animals for entertainment. Yet I look at that and I question it because by their ability to do that these organizations can then run these programs. I am thinking especially of the Vancouver Aquarium, which I know quite well, and the programs they offer in terms of the scientific research they're doing. They're doing that without going to taxpayers continually for money.
We have a lot of calls on our tax dollars in this country, as do most countries. I'm quite sure you would support the display. It doesn't seem to me that displaying these animals for entertainment is harming the animals in any way. Have you seen any evidence of damage or harm to the animals through their entertainment display?
Dr. Cornell: Let me be perfectly honest. Over the years in my experience with different kinds of animals, not necessarily marine mammals, but all types of animals, I've seen mismanagement and cruelty occur. Yes, absolutely. I've also seen it with children and with certain adults with disabilities.
The question that you asked is: Does the government have a responsibility to pay for these things to be on display around the world in different areas? I don't think so. I think we have enough trouble supplying health care for the human population and food for everyone that we supply food for.
Look at the tax dollars that a place like Marineland pours into the government economy in Canada. I mean, literally I would say, probably over the years there has been a billion dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if I was right or wrong, but it's a tremendous amount of money. In doing so, they have paid their own way. Places like Marineland do not go to the government and borrow money. They don't even have to go to the government for the land and appropriations and facilities that they build. Most of them are done without any kind of supply of any kind of cash from the government.
To me, the question answers itself. Any time we can have a business operate, supply its own cash flow and pay for itself without taking money out of the government economy that we need to put forward for health care, food, medicine, vaccines and those sorts of things, I don't think there is any question it should be done that way.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Did you have a question on the second round, Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: I have just one, chair, if I could.
We've heard over and over again, Dr. Cornell, from both the proponents of the bill as well as opponents of the bill that sea animals like whales are very social animals. You spoke, in answer to Senator Sinclair's question, about freeing a killer whale that was in a bad facility in Mexico, and Marineland has Kiska. It is a bit of a Catch-22. They cannot bring in a whale in to be with Kiska and to help in that regard. They cannot free Kiska. They're not allowed to transfer Kiska.
I believe Senator Hubley talked about France not allowing breeding in captivity. Being the social animals that they are, as we have heard constantly, would you not consider that to be a little bit cruel and unusual punishment not to allow breeding in captivity if we have animals in captivity?
Dr. Cornell: I definitely think that the animals should be able to repopulate in captivity. They should be able to breed and have offspring. There's no doubt about it in my mind. It is the one of the things that I have worked so hard on over the years.
That single thing in itself has stopped the removal of animals from the wild, or slowed it down to almost a trickle in most cases, because they were capable of breeding them in a captive environment, having them reproduce in our environments and supplying even other zoos and aquariums from these facilities. Marineland has beluga whales now in the United States and other aquariums that they supplied out of the breeding population they produced here in Canada. The Canadian government should be extremely proud of that.
As far as Kiska is concerned, let's look at her specifically in two or three different ways. First, to answer your question: Should she have another killer whale with her? Absolutely. At this point it can't be done because of laws, regulations and impediments that we should be able to overcome.
Second, should she be released to the wild? Absolutely not. She has been in a captive environment for many years. When she was brought in from the wild, Kiska had a medical problem that required attention throughout her entire career at Marineland. Releasing her to the wild, I'm pretty sure, would be her death sentence. It would definitely be the wrong thing to do in her case. It would take a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous amount of time to recondition her to be released to the wild.
That particular issue to me is way off the table. Is it fair to her? Is it humane to her to have no other killer whale there with her? As I said, I would certainly prefer that she did have another killer whale with her. In the case as it is now, she has some other animals swimming with her, but she also gets a tremendous amount of attention from the trainers and people who care for her. Almost on a minute-by-minute basis, unless she decides not to, she has attention there at Marineland. She solicits that attention too, by the way, and she gets fed certainly when she wants to.
There is one thing we haven't talked about. I've heard a couple of people mention that these animals swim great distances in the wild and migrate from one place to another, and so forth. The bottom line amounts to one single thing: food source. All kinds of animals, no matter what they are, whether they are in Africa or in the ocean or wherever they are, the only reason they move from point A to point B is because of the food source. The grass is always greener on the other side, or there are more fish over there than there are over here. That is why they migrate. That's why killer whales swim 50 or 75 miles a day. It is because the food source is moving there too, or they go to where the food source is.
A sperm whale, for instance, has been known to dive over a mile deep in the ocean, but a sperm whale does not dive a mile deep in the ocean without having a reason. That's a tremendous amount of energy to expend, going down a mile in the ocean. It takes a humongous amount of energy to do that. Why do they do it? It is because the food source is down there. That's where they eat. The giant squid they feed upon is at the bottom of that mile-deep chasm they're swimming above. They go down there, pick it up and come back to the surface and digest it.
All animals move from one place to another, mostly because of food sources. In this particular instance we're talking about swimming long distances and so forth, but these animals wouldn't do it if there was a source of food right there with them all the time. Keiko was a perfect example of that. When we had him in Norway, he hung out within a mile or so of the trainers were all the time, and when he got hungry he came back to them for food. Even though he could feed in the fjord, feed on salmon and so forth in the ocean, he chose to come back to the trainers because it was easy money.
Senator Hubley: I have a very quick question. Whether it is a breeding program, Dr. Cornell, or something that occurs naturally within the aquariums, what happens to the offspring? What happens when the population gets to the point where the facility does not accommodate them appropriately, or is that an issue?
As the population grows, what happens to the extras that would be there. They can't go back to the wild, I understand. Is that correct?
Dr. Cornell: That's correct. In my opinion, that's not something that should happen.
More facilities can be built for them. You can also introduce breeding program controls, such as birth control, if you want to. So far, that has not been an issue with any animals in captivity as far as marine animals are concerned because there haven't been enough of them bred to make that happen.
You can also supply the offspring to other zoos and aquariums to allow them to expand their base of animal populations. Instead of having them all stay in one place, they could be spread around to different places. For instance, Marineland of Canada could probably spare some animals for the Vancouver Aquarium. The Vancouver Aquarium, I'm sure, could bring some animals at some point to Marineland in exchange for some animals. They could be taken to various places in the United States. They could be taken to faraway countries, as far as that is concerned.
We can transport these animals anywhere in the world very safely nowadays. We used to fumble our way through it, but now we know exactly how to do it and do it extremely safely. We have not lost animals in transportation for many, many, many years, quite frankly.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Cornell. It has been a great conversation. Thank you for taking the time to join us here this evening.
Before we finish up this portion, I want to ask: Is it agreed that the committee go in camera to discuss future business?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)