Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - February 28, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), met this day at 5:15 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 am pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before I give the floor to our witness, I would invite members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Munson: Senator Munson, from Ontario.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, P.E.I.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario. Welcome back.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
This evening, the committee is beginning 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 this evening to begin by welcoming our former colleague, and the former sponsor of the bill, the Honourable Wilfred P. Moore. It is great to see you back in Ottawa again, even though it is only for a short time. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being with us today and coming here to kick-start our study.
I understand you have opening remarks, Senator Moore, so we will ask you to proceed with those, and then I'm sure we will have questions for you afterward. The floor is yours.
The Hon. Wilfred P. Moore, former senator, as an individual: Thank you, chair, and thank you, senators, for inviting me here today. As the former sponsor of Bill S-203, and now as a private citizen, it is an honour to have the opportunity to contribute to your study on the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act.
I look forward to closely following what I know will be a thorough review of the scientific and moral issues raised by this legislation. I hope you will conclude, as I have, that Canada should phase out the captivity of whales and dolphins, with an exception for rescues and rehabilitation.
At the outset, I wish to express my gratitude to Senator Sinclair for taking over as sponsor of the bill. Thank you very much, Murray. I wish you all the best in your efforts. If there is anything I can do, I would be happy to help you get this bill passed and over to the House of Commons.
I will try to keep my remarks concise today to save as much time as possible for questions that the committee members might have. However, I would like to take a little time to explain the scientific and moral justification for Bill S-203 and to describe the bill's legal details. I will also outline for the committee three amendments you may wish to consider as you conduct your study.
As you know, I have argued that keeping whales in display tanks is unjustifiably cruel. This moral conclusion is supported by scientific evidence, which tells us that whales, dolphins and porpoises, collectively known as cetaceans, share characteristics such as high-level intelligence, emotions, sociability, complex communication ability and roaming lifestyles. In the view of many, these characteristics oblige us to extend these creatures moral consideration.
That is why Bill S-203 seeks to grant whales and dolphins reasonable legal protections from the harms of captivity. Specifically, Bill S-203 seeks to protect them from confinement, isolation, health problems, reduced lifespans, high infant mortality rates and sensory deprivation, which must be acute for creatures that experience the world through echolocation.
We must keep in mind that wild whales and dolphins inhabit complex and stimulating ocean ecosystems, interacting and communicating with extended and closely bonded family groups and travelling vast distances. In stark contrast, captive whales and dolphins live out their days in comparatively minuscule concrete pools. They live in near or complete isolation and they perform tricks for entertainment.
In Canada, two facilities keep whales and dolphins in captivity: Marineland, an amusement park in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and the Vancouver Aquarium. Marineland holds the vast majority of Canada's captivity cetaceans with approximately 50 belugas, dolphins and one isolated orca.
As I mentioned at second reading, Marineland purchases wild caught whales from Russia, breeds them in Canada and provides them to American Aquariums since the United States generally won't allow the import of wild caught whales.
Phil Demers, former head trainer at Marineland who consulted on this bill, has indicated that Marineland's whales are trained using starvation and fed fish containing Valium. In addition, Marineland is currently facing 11 animal cruelty charges in relation to its land animals.
The Vancouver Aquarium now holds only three cetaceans. All three were rescued and rehabilitated and could not be released. Bill S-203 would continue to allow that activity. However, this past November, the Vancouver Aquarium's two beluga whales both died suddenly. The mother, Aurora, who was taken from her family near Churchill, Manitoba in 1990, died shortly after her daughter Qila succumbed.
Though the Vancouver Aquarium had committed to first identifying the cause of those deaths last week, and presumably in anticipation of these hearings, the Aquarium announced it will proceed with a $20 million expansion of its whale tanks. To fill these tanks the Aquarium intends to import and display five beluga whales it currently has on loan to American theme parks, including SeaWorld. The Vancouver Aquarium stated that these whales will not breed and that the beluga exhibit will be phased out 12 years from now by 2029.
Like Marineland, the Vancouver Aquarium opposes Bill S-203. However, this position strikes me as contradictory since last week's announcement endorsed the moral proposition that breeding should not occur and whale captivity should be phased out except for cases of rescue.
I would encourage the Vancouver Aquarium to explain this inconsistency before this committee. I would also challenge the Vancouver Aquarium to publicly indicate whether or not their organization supports the legal rights of Marineland to breed and trade in captive whales and dolphins.
The Vancouver Aquarium claims that its activities support research crucial for conservation of wild whales. As you know from my speech in final reply at second reading, the eminent marine scientist Dr. Sidney Holt has specifically refuted this claim as "specious at best" since captivity has not meaningfully contributed to the conservation of any cetacean species. In addition, over 20 marine biologists from around the world have endorsed Bill S-203, and Dr. Jane Goodall has supported the policies contained in Bill S-203 stating that the Vancouver Aquarium's beluga program is "no longer defensible by science."
Legally, Bill S-203 exercises the federal powers over international trade, criminal animal cruelty and marine mammals in coastal waters. Specifically, Bill S-203 bans live captures, imports and exports in changes to the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. It also creates a criminal animal cruelty offence, prohibiting the breeding of cetaceans or the taking into captivity of new cetaceans. As with other practice-specific offences, such as fighting or baiting animals or releasing birds and shooting them, this provision is a moral condemnation of a cruel practice with an appropriate sanction.
Under Bill S-203, rescue and rehabilitation are permitted and both marine parks may keep their currently captive cetaceans, some of which will presumably survive for decades. Under Bill S-203, live entertainment shows involving these cetaceans will require a provincial licence.
I am mindful of time so I will now quickly outline three amendments to Bill S-203 that the committee may wish to consider as improvements to the bill.
First, I'm aware of concerns the import and export restrictions as drafted are overly broad. With the current language they could potentially apply to dead scientific specimens or carved narwhal tusks going across the border. Such an application was certainly not my intention, so clause 4 could be amended to clarify that the restriction only applies to live cetaceans and reproductive materials that can be used in captive breeding.
Second, as I stated in the chamber, I would support amending the criminal penalty in clause 2 to a summary offence, without the possibility of jail but with a significant fine sufficient to deter and condemn the breeding of cetaceans.
Third, and most importantly, I would urge the consideration of an additional change to the import and export restrictions in clause 4. Specifically, I would add an exception to allow for the import or export of live cetaceans for the purpose of moving retired captive whales and dolphins to sea pen sanctuaries. There they can live out their lives in vastly improved, reasonably natural conditions.
Dr. Lori Marino, a scientist and Bill S-203 supporter who I would commend to this committee, is president of The Whale Sanctuary Project, a U.S.-based organization looking to establish such a site. They have under consideration locations in Washington State, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. I would love to see Canada lead on such an innovative and inspiring project. In fact, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Vancouver Aquarium was a leading partner in a project like that? I can tell this committee I would then be behind them 100 per cent.
Supporters of Bill S-203 include Dr. Marc Bekoff of the Jane Goodall Institute; Gabriela Cowperthwaite, director of the CNN-distributed documentary Blackfish; Ric O'Barry, former trainer of Flipper and subject of the Oscar- winning documentary on dolphin drive hunting entitled The Cove; the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the prospective House of Commons sponsor, Elizabeth May; 5,775 Canadians who petitioned the house in support; and over 27,000 people who have signed an international change.org petition.
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Roberston has publicly opposed captive breeding and Niagara Falls Mayor Jim Diodati has called for a graduated opportunity for Marineland to reinvent itself.
I would like now to quote for the committee remarks made by our former colleague Senator Janis Johnson. This is from a speech she made in the chamber on March 22, 2016:
Honourable senators, I believe the practice of keeping whales in captivity will not go on forever. We have to move with the times. Public opinion has shifted. Science makes it clear it is no longer acceptable to keep whales in captivity for entertainment, and with this bill we have the opportunity to get on the right side of the issue at the earliest stage. It is not a local issue, honourable senators, it is a moral issue.
Therefore, senators, I would submit that now is the time to act.
I would like to close by thanking you in advance for your work on this legislation. The decision on this bill is up to this committee, the Senate and the House of Commons, but as a final remark I would encourage this committee to keep the suffering of captive whales and dolphins as its focus. We know enough about these creatures to infer what it must be like for them to live in captivity: plainly isolation, confinement, health problems, sensory deprivation and the trauma of high infant mortality rates. We know enough about these creatures to know it's wrong.
Please consider the evidence and search your hearts. I think you will find that whales and dolphins deserve to live free lives, among their kind in the open sea. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moore.
Senator Hubley: Senator Moore, thank you very much for being here. It's very nice to have you back.
You referred to the number of emails we were getting, and I would like to expand on that a bit. As you know, the Vancouver Aquarium announced new plans for beluga research. It said it would be expanding its marine mammal research program, bringing home the belugas currently on loan with other institutions and expanding the beluga habitat. However, by the end of 2029, the Aquarium would be discontinuing its display of beluga whales and the beluga conservation research program.
What do you think of the Vancouver Aquarium's announcements?
Mr. Moore: I read it with much interest. It doesn't really address the key issue that these creatures don't belong in swimming pools. That is a known fact.
I listened to their thoughts about 2029. I don't know the significance of that date, unless it is that they think they can bring back two of the whales they have on loan or are renting or whatever to some other facility. If they bring them back, maybe that's the end of their life. I don't know what their anticipation is. If it is wrong in 2029, it's wrong in 2017. I don't think it should be happening.
As I said in my remarks, society has passed us by on this. The Aquarium would be smart to get connected with someone like Lori Marino and provide a more natural habitat for cetaceans that cannot be returned to the wild.
Senator Hubley: The text of the email asserts that your bill will hinder beluga research. It also implies that your bill will affect the rescue of marine mammals and stop all research on cetaceans as a whole. I think you have seen the memo. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Moore: That's simply untrue. The bill does not call for the end of research. The bill provides for continuing research on cetaceans that they now have in their possession. It also provides for research on rescued cetaceans they might come upon in the future that cannot be returned to the wild because they can't exist in the wild. They would be able to keep those and do research on those. That's simply not correct, what you said there.
Senator Munson: Thank you, Willie, for being here. There is certainly a push from the other side of the debate, from the Vancouver Aquarium. They have sent a lot of information to a few of us about your bill.
The Aquarium maintains that the study and observation of captive cetaceans have improved our understanding of them and have helped protect wild populations. You say you believe in the studying continuing, but do you believe it does have scientific value?
Mr. Moore: That question is probably best answered by witnesses who are scientists that will come before the committee.
I have already expressed some of the comments to you. Here is something from Dr. Jane Goodall:
The current permission of Vancouver Aquarium cetacean breeding programs on-site, and at SeaWorld with belugas on loan, is no longer defensible by science. This is demonstrated by the high mortality rates evident in these breeding programs and by the ongoing use of these animals in interactive shows and entertainment. The phasing out of such programs is the natural progression of human-kind's evolving view of our non-human animal kin.
As I mentioned, Dr. Sidney Holt said the research is specious at best.
Let me give you an example of what happened in Nova Scotia this past fall. Senator McInnis might be familiar with this because it was reported in the local press a couple of times. This is real, factual, human-cetacean interaction.
In Digby, Nova Scotia, on the shore of the Bay of Fundy, a couple of fishermen were working at low tide on their fishing boat. A juvenile humpback whale came in right alongside them and peacefully remained there. They looked at it. The whale had fishing gear caught in its mouth. It waited until the fishermen cut that free and that humpback hung around for a bit and then left.
Now that humpback whale knew what it was doing. It was coming in for help. The fishermen couldn't get over it. That is what we are. That's what we should be doing, interrelating with these creatures, not putting them in swimming pools.
Senator Munson: I have a quick follow-up. Part of the information from the Vancouver Aquarium is about economy and jobs; doctors, scientists and biologists; and the idea that 450 individuals are employed. It's a major part of the economy and they really are caring for these animals that have been rescued off the beaches and with the complexities they now have wouldn't survive if you put them back in the ocean.
That is a long phase-out, 2029, of this whole program. If this bill became law, how would an Aquarium like the Vancouver Aquarium work in the phase-out manner that you are suggesting, weaning us off the desire of couples bringing their children to see animals in captivity? How would that whole thing work?
Mr. Moore: The 2029 program is one announced by the Vancouver Aquarium. The bill permits ongoing research. It doesn't stop research. It doesn't stop those jobs. It stops people going out to catch them. It stops them from breeding them and from renting them or selling them to other facilities. The Vancouver Aquarium manages the largest Aquarium in Europe, in Spain. Do they have a breeding program? Are they supplying whales, cetaceans to that facility?
It's one thing to talk about employment and all of that, but what is driving this? Is it really the health and the care of the cetaceans or is it the almighty dollar?
Senator Plett: I also have a number of questions, but I will ask one or two and then go on another round.
First, Senator Moore, thank you for being here. In preparation for this bill, which really affects only two institutions in Canada, I'm curious as to whether you have reached out to the Vancouver Aquarium or Marineland or in fact visited either one of these two facilities that have these small swimming pools you are talking about.
Mr. Moore: I have visited the Vancouver Aquarium a couple of times. I was contacted once by Marineland, and then they wanted me to speak again to their legal counsel. I was not prepared to do that.
Senator Plett: I assume it was quite a while ago when you were at the Vancouver Aquarium because I don't think you have been there since you started with this legislation. Am I correct?
Mr. Moore: That's correct.
Senator Plett: What evidence do you have that marine mammals at either the Vancouver Aquarium or Marineland are suffering?
Mr. Moore: Suffering?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Moore: They are not just suffering, senator; they are dying. They are dying. They are breeding them. They are not living any more than two or three years. They're separating the calves from the mothers. The mothers are then sinking to the bottom of the pool, banging their heads against the pool, because they're distressed.
Senator Plett: Aurora was how old when she died?
Mr. Moore: I don't know how old she was. I'm suggesting to you that regardless of how old she was when she died, she would have lived a lot longer in the wild.
Senator Plett: Are you suggesting, then, that we shut down the hunting of belugas in the wild in Nunavut, because maybe Aurora would have been there and not lived nearly as long as she did?
Mr. Moore: If the Inuit have the right to hunt belugas as a traditional way of harvesting and feeding their community, I'm not against that.
Senator Plett: But surely they are suffering if they are being hunted. If you are on a campaign to save the whales and you are on a campaign to make sure whales don't suffer, why would we not want to stop the slaughter of whales in the Arctic as well as stop the captivity of whales in the south?
Mr. Moore: I'm not aware of the slaughter of whales in the Arctic.
Senator Plett: The killing of whales.
Mr. Moore: If that's how these Canadians survive and that keeps them in a healthy state of affairs as opposed to us trying to southernize them, I'm all for that.
Senator Plett: I'll ask this, chair, and then I'll go on the next round.
The St. Lawrence beluga population is down to the last 800 or so whales. It's certainly not because they're in Marineland or Vancouver Aquarium. They are critically endangered.
Ending the beluga research program in Canada would result in an immediate end to the ongoing training our first responders require to rescue, rehabilitate and release cetaceans in distress. This is something that the Aquarium and Marineland people are telling us.
Are you suggesting that Canada shut down its only marine mammal rescue centre? That's what it would be doing.
Mr. Moore: I'm not advocating the shutting down of any rescue centre.
Senator Plett: Putting them out of business shuts them down.
Mr. Moore: Who is talking about putting them out of business?
Senator Plett: They are.
Mr. Moore: I'm not. They might be.
Senator Plett: And they will be witnesses here.
Mr. Moore: I'm not talking about putting them out of business. I've said that. Research and looking after those that cannot be returned to the wild may continue. The bill provides for that.
Senator Plett: If they release them back into the wild.
Mr. Moore: If they can, if they're able to. If they're not able to then they can keep them in their facility and they can do research on them. The bill says that, senator. What they said in the release —
Senator Plett: We will hear from Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium.
The Chair: You wanted to add a comment, Senator Moore.
Mr. Moore: I was just going to say that a similar law, not quite as expansive, was passed in California in September where that facility stopped the captivity of cetaceans. It was supported by SeaWorld, interesting.
Senator McInnis: Thank you, Senator Moore, for coming here. You're a hound for punishment in your retirement.
Mr. Moore: It goes with the territory for all of us in the Senate, formerly, anyway.
Senator McInnis: I want to say that I'm no expert on this — I don't think any of us are — but my mind is open. While I started to do my research and read quite extensively on this, I still haven't made up my mind. Anyone can read some of the details here. You said it's "morally wrong," the captivity of creatures such as this in what you called "swimming pools." They are highly intelligent and emotional.
Mr. Moore: They are.
Senator McInnis: They swim allegedly 150 kilometres a day, dive 200 metres and live in large families called pods.
Then I read of health problems — stress, socially isolated, open wounds, teeth lost, and trained allegedly through starvation.
You read that, and you say, "Why wouldn't I be for this bill?"
Then you look at the educational component of it: allegedly upward of 4,000 disabled, special needs children yearly attend, thousands of schoolchildren, Make-a-Wish foundation and college programs on mammalogy. There is an educational component that is put forth.
When university or even high school students go, their interest is piqued that perhaps they may want someday to become a scientist or a marine biologist. Then we read that 80 world renowned scientists from around the world penned a letter stating: "These mammals in captivity in Canada receive the highest standards of care." Then we read the president and CEO of Vancouver Aquarium, John Nightingale, said that phasing out whales and dolphins will stop future cetacean research and that we cannot rely on haphazard availability of rescued mammals.
Let me ask you on this last part that I read, and not the moral, not the heart-wrenching aspects: What weight would you put on the educational component and on the world renowned scientists? What kind of weight would you attribute to that?
Mr. Moore: To their statements?
Senator McInnis: To their statements and generally the educational component and the research of scientists using these animals in captivity.
Mr. Moore: I'm not against that, senator. I recognize those things. I have some young friends who are marine biologists that work with whales and sharks. I'm sensitive to that.
This bill does not stop that. This bill permits ongoing research of the cetaceans that these facilities now have and of rescues they will bring in that they can't return to the wild. That seems to be the history anyway in these facilities. Although Marineland is a breeding place, Vancouver Aquarium has been bringing in rescues and doing research. I'm not advocating stopping that. I realize the importance of that.
At the same time it's an unnatural habitat for these large roaming creatures to be penned up in these small pools.
Senator McInnis: Fair ball, but they're saying that you cannot rely on the availability of rescued animals.
Mr. Moore: Who says that? Who is "they?"
Senator McInnis: John Nightingale said that.
Mr. Moore: I don't know what the inventory has been over the years. I'm sure if you talked to him you'd know how many rescues he's had. He has a lot of them, I gather, because he's used that many times in his comments to justify his research. It's not like they're not available, according to what he has said in the past.
There are other ways, as well, of educating people. It doesn't just have to be this. These other facilities in the United States are reinventing or reorganizing themselves to provide the same education without having captive cetaceans. They're able to do it. We can follow. We should be hooking up with them and getting some ideas, if that's the case.
I hope that answers your question.
Senator McInnis: But you see the challenge that the committee has here. That's why I'm looking forward to some of the experts who will come here before the committee. I'd like to hear what they have to say because at the moment, after doing the research that I've done and reading this material, it's kind of like flipping a coin in the air. That's not the responsible way to go.
I want to hear it. I hear what you're saying. I hear the emotion. It is an emotional issue. For me, I have to take all the information into consideration and make the best decision I can make, but it's a challenging opportunity and I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to the future witnesses that will appear.
I respect what you're doing. You were a distinguished senator and certainly a distinguished citizen of Nova Scotia. You would not take this on unless you seriously believed it to be the proper thing to do, but it's a challenge.
Mr. Moore: Senator, I know it is. That's what the Senate is all about. We don't take on things that are easy. We often take on things that are groundbreaking, that are leading in society. We air each side of an issue, and that's all I'm asking for the committee to do with this particular bill.
I know it's not easy, but I think I'm on the right side. Keep an open mind and listen to the witnesses. That's all I can ask you to do, because you will hear some good witnesses on both sides. I know you're going to hear some good ones in support of the bill.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much.
Senator Enverga: Welcome, Willie. You're free Willie now, because you're not in the Senate any more.
Mr. Moore: It was bound to happen, chair.
Senator Enverga: I hope you enjoy your freedom.
I recently received some notes from Marineland. They indicated that the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals visited them last week or two weeks ago and somehow they did not find any issues of concern. Can you comment on that? When you say no issues of concern does it mean they're doing good? What do you think about that?
Mr. Moore: I don't know about that. I'm not familiar with the case. I saw the news report that they were being charged with something by an animal rights group or legislation. I don't know anything about that, so I can't comment on that.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for doing your great work here. You've been a great part of the Senate, and we really respect you for doing all these things.
Mr. Moore: Thank you. I appreciate it.
The Chair: We will begin the second round now.
Senator Munson: I was going to almost call you Mr. Moore, but it doesn't sound right. The provincial licence you talked about, what would that do? What is behind a provincial licence that makes it any different than today? Would you explain what that means?
Mr. Moore: A cetacean is considered property. It's property, so somebody has to have some jurisdiction over the use of and conservation of that property. The provincial laws are there. It seems to me that is the jurisdiction that should have final say in terms of granting a licence.
Senator Munson: What other countries have banned the keeping in captivity, public display, entertainment, import, export and capture of wild and marine mammals? Do you have a list of countries? It would be nice to know that and why they did it. If you don't have it now, we can get it later.
Mr. Moore: I have it now, but it's going to take some time. I can send this, Mr. Chairman, to the clerk and you can distribute it. It is many countries and on many aspects of the bill.
Senator Munson: As Senator McInnis says, we have an open mind and we are going to hear a number of witnesses on this bill.
Part of the argument from those who oppose this bill is the idea of the criminality or summary offence as you describe it. A lot of doctors and scientists do work. I recognize what you've said. It's very emotional and sensitive. I understand the idea of captivity. That part is not right, but those who worked in this field for 20 to 30 years on the whales brought them in from the beaches for their scientific work. They too care for these animals. Part of their debate or discussion is the fact that they would be labelled as criminals, that this would be a criminal offence.
How do you respond to that kind of argument?
Mr. Moore: As I mentioned in my remarks, I suggested looking at changing the clause to remove that.
The bill originally provided for an indictable criminal offence with a nominal fine. In trying to work out a better arrangement for everybody I reached out to Senator Claude Carignan, leader of the Conservatives in the Senate, and agreed to change that so it's just a matter of a summary conviction like a parking ticket and to increase the fine to $200,000, thinking who would do what we don't want to have done here. It would be mostly be corporations. It wouldn't be individuals.
The criminality part has been removed. We should consider that in the amendment I'm suggesting you look at. It has no impact on scientists doing work. Research is not stopped. Research continues under the bill. It doesn't create criminal activity, which research is not.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much for that. I have a brief question on the process we're going through here. You are one of the senators from way back when, along with the late and great senator Norm Atkins, Mike Forrestall and others who encouraged me at the beginning about 14 years ago when I said I had an idea on autism and creating a day, a legal entity, a world autism awareness day. It's a motherhood/fatherhood/childhood issue. I worked at it, put it out there as a statement, made it into an inquiry, pushed to get it on to the social affairs committee, and finally got that debate.
It took three years in the Senate to get that passed. It shouldn't have taken three years. There was opposition about the preamble and all these things that you didn't expect when you are brand new in the Senate. It was finally passed.
Former Senator Moore, you have this bill in front of us and it has to go through this process. Then if it does make it, it has to go over to the House of Commons and go through that process. It's a private member's bill, and we know where private member's bills are at in terms of stacking.
Is it realistic this bill can get that far? Can it muster enough support over a reasonable period of time for doing something that you feel is extremely important and thousands of others feel the same way?
Mr. Moore: In my time in the Senate people have spoken to me on both sides of the aisle. I think the bill has support in the Senate if it is put to a vote in the Senate, but it has to go through committee and be put on the floor of the Senate.
I know that people in the House of Commons are looking for it. They know it has to go through this process in the Senate Chamber. I'm surprised it took this long to get it this far. It kind of bothers me that I'm not still a senator. I can't sit at the table and ask questions or even vote on it.
However, there are a lot of rules under which the Senate operates and sometimes that sober second thought can get stalled a bit. I'm hopeful that with the senators, with the deliberations and the quality of witnesses that it will advance. I hope it advances in the next month or two. I hope it doesn't get stalled into another summer recess or anything like what happened last year. It doesn't behoove the Senate to do that. If we are truly a chamber of sober second thought on deliberation of an issue, let's do that.
I remain hopeful, senator. What else do you have?
Senator Munson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just to advise the members of the committee and Senator Moore, we have a long list of people who want to come over on this bill. As a matter of fact the interest that has been generated on both sides is amazing. We are doing our best to expedite that. We have been advised that a couple of new names came in today. We will see how we do with it. We are trying our best.
Senator Plett: Senator Moore, I agree with the last comment you made. I hope I will still be in the Senate when my private member's bill finally comes forward.
Mr. Moore: I supported it. I'm the guy who spoke for it. You know that. I didn't hold it up.
Senator Plett: I know you did. I have eight years left in the Senate, and I hope I will get it through by then. Nevertheless, Senator Moore, you did support it, and I appreciate that. Sometimes one is on the same side and sometimes one is on the side of the angels.
Mr. Moore: I need your help, Don, a little reciprocity.
Senator Plett: Senator Moore, you talked about changing this to a summary conviction. Summary convictions are still convictions; they are still criminal. Nevertheless, that is not a question but an observation.
I visited the Aquarium three or maybe four times since you first introduced this bill. I visited Marineland and I visited the Aquarium as a matter of fact just this last weekend. Of course that is since the deaths of Aurora and Qila. I believe that as a legislator involved, if I want to be either the sponsor or a critic of a bill, I should have the information in front of me. That is why I went there, to get some facts and find out why these whales have died.
The veterinarians and the marine science team are absolutely distraught and perplexed about these deaths. I am sure you believe that and agree with that. As you know, this has never happened that two whales that were perfectly healthy before the symptoms began mysteriously died. Of course nothing has been ruled out.
Maybe I misread something in your statement, but I found it interesting that you would be privy to the cause of death of these two belugas when you suggest it is in relation to these whales being in human care. Scientists and researchers have come from around the world and visited the site to try to solve this mystery, because it is such an anomaly.
Do you know the cause of death of the hundred whales in the wild that mysteriously washed up on the Indian shore last year? You are aware of why these whales died, it seems like, but why did those whales die or are you not aware of why either whale died?
Mr. Moore: I saw the news reports, senator. I am not a scientist. There are scientists around the world who have opinions on that and someone will be here to speak to this bill.
Senator Plett: When I asked you whether you had facts about why the whales might be in distress — I forget the exact question — or a shred of evidence that marine mammals in the Vancouver Aquarium are suffering, you said that they died. Is that evidence they are suffering because they are in captivity?
Mr. Moore: I would suggest it is. It is not their natural habitat.
Senator Plett: Why would the hundred whales in the wild die in the Indian Ocean?
Mr. Moore: I wouldn't know.
Senator Plett: That is their natural habitat.
Mr. Moore: Some scientists will have to come up with an answer.
Senator Plett: You are coming up with some answers and then you don't explain them.
You mentioned, Senator Moore, Phil Demers from Marineland. I believe he may be a witness here. If Phil Demers is listening or watching, he may be able to prepare these answers for himself, but does its concern you that Mr. Demers' continuous allegations have all been unsubstantiated and have resulted in not one single charge against Marineland?
Does it further concern you that Mr. Demers is not qualified to treat even a house cat and has absolutely zero qualification to assess animal welfare, yet he is supposedly putting himself up as an expert witness?
Does it further concern you that Mr. Demers has publicly stated that he illegally took specialized medical drugs meant for marine mammals for his own personal use while he was working at Marineland?
Mr. Moore: You are stating stuff, senator, which I have no knowledge of.
Senator Plett: Would it concern you that this person is an expert witness here?
Mr. Moore: Mr. Demers will answer for himself when he comes before you, which I hope he does.
Senator Plett: Does it concern you?
Mr. Moore: I don't know the facts, and I am not going to get into answering hypotheticals.
Senator Plett: It is not hypothetical. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I am sure this debate will be very interesting.
Senator Hubley: I want to touch on the educational aspect of the situation. I'm not making a statement as to whether or not it is proper. If we are putting a wild animal into a situation that is not conducive to its well-being, does that have educational value? I'm debating it; I'm not criticizing one way or the other.
I wanted to share with you that the Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown does a lot of research. They treat large and small animals found on farms, but they use that as a reality in their educational programs. They have summer schools for children. Those children can go in and watch how animals are treated and how they get better and how some don't; that's life.
I'm trying to see now if that educational program has a realistic value to young people and has a more genuine approach to what an education should be as far as when we are dealing with animals of this size and nature.
I think we will be able to ask that question to some of our scientists, but have you seen or heard of examples where the centres that look after animals, and not the Aquariums as such, have a different educational program? We don't classify what they are doing as educational only because they are presenting an animal in an environment that we may not think is healthy to that animal.
Mr. Moore: That is an interesting question. As I mentioned earlier, the SeaWorld facility in California is redoing itself without keeping cetaceans in captivity. There are ways to educate people, whether it is by film, video, or in the wild.
When people think of cetaceans it seems to me it's all about this beautiful creature in the ocean. It is humpbacks doing flukes with their flippers. That is the imagery. That is what we are talking about. That doesn't happen. You have never seen a humpback do that in an Aquarium. They can't. It's not their habitat.
For those types of questions there will be marine biologists or educators who will be able to answer them better.
Senator Plett: Senator Moore, in your own province did you know there are swimming with whales programs where humans have the opportunity to intrusively enter natural habitats and approach cetaceans in the wild? Does it concern you that human beings are going into the waters in your province and swimming with the whales?
Mr. Moore: I'm not aware of that program being available.
Senator Plett: Would that concern you if you had known about it?
Mr. Moore: No. Have you ever looked at the book, Voices in the Ocean?
Senator Plett: Senator Moore, you are the witness. You are supposed to answer the question, not ask a question.
Mr. Moore: No, read this book. It talks about swimming with the cetaceans. It is a mind-opener. I know that we have good whale watching in Nova Scotia on the Bay of Fundy, the Atlantic coast. We have it in Churchill, Manitoba. They advertise it in Nova Scotia newspapers to go up there.
Senator Plett: I support it there and in the Aquariums, though. That's the difference, I guess.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Senator Moore, for bringing this issue before us. This is a brand new issue for me; I have never dealt with it before. As I am listening to the questions and to your testimony, I am trying to decide in my mind what are the criteria for judging this issue? A lot of the argument talks about the human need to research the species.
The other side of the question I am wrestling with is I wish it were possible to get the testimony of a cetacean. If we could talk to a cetacean and ask these questions, we would know for sure. There would be no need for asking scientists and witnesses.
It may be my Aboriginal upbringing, but we were always taught that animals are our brothers and sisters. They are living beings. They have their own spirits. They have their own families. They have their own language. When I think of it that way I see them as equals.
When I see it the other way I see them as objects, as things that we would have our will over: We would dictate how they would live and how they would be. When I think of them as objects then, yes, it makes sense that we should put them in pens and use them for research and education, but something tells me in my mind that is the wrong approach. We really have to see cetaceans as our equals, as living beings.
If I had an opportunity to ask a beluga I think I would ask them: What is best for your family? I would be very interested to find out what that answer would be. Obviously that is unanswerable.
Mr. Moore: I think I partially answered your thought in the example I gave of that juvenile humpback in the Bay of Fundy.
I was driving along one day this past summer listening to Dick Van Dyke, a TV star in the United States. He was out swimming, got beyond his depth and was in big trouble. A pod of porpoise came along, lifted him up and brought him into shore. They are talking to us. They are doing the right thing with us.
Senator Christmas: Senator Plett mentioned Aboriginal harvesting of whales. I would agree there is suffering involved in harvesting of animals, but in the Aboriginal culture harvesting was always done with respect and sometimes with tradition and ceremony.
Mr. Moore: Very much.
Senator Christmas: We would be grateful that the creature had given its life for the sustenance of our people. I understand harvesting involves suffering and unfortunately it also involves death.
In my mind, then, an animal giving itself for that reason is one thing, but to have an animal in confinement over an extended period of time for the only purpose of filling a human need for research and education doesn't seem to balance with the overall dignity and respect for the animal and its freedom.
I will leave those comments. I am struggling with the issue, and I am trying to find a way to weigh the different factors.
Mr. Moore: I appreciate your candid remarks. I thank you for that. It is not easy, senator. I know that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Christmas. You have echoed the feelings of many senators around the table.
Senator Gold: Please forgive me for arriving late and a double apology because I may be asking a question that was already asked and answered.
It's clear from the bill that the prohibition does not extend to someone who has custody or control for the purpose of providing a cetacean with assistance or care.
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Senator Gold: In Clearwater, Florida, there is a marine hospital that takes care of injured sea animals, including porpoises and dolphins. I visited it with my grandchildren last year. These are animals that are rescued, sometimes without a fin. The point is they are not able to return to the wild for various reasons that were explained to us at the time. They are there. They are assisted and cared for but they are not released back into the wild. The public is invited to visit this centre and to contribute funds, which keeps it going.
I'm not talking about the Vancouver Aquarium or Marineland, neither of which I have ever visited, but how do you see this bill and that exemption applying to a rescue facility such as I have described that is open to the public and depends on the public for maintaining its mission?
Mr. Moore: The bill does not call for the end of research or the end of holding rescued cetaceans in those facilities when they cannot be returned to the wild. The bill acknowledges that. It does not prohibit that.
Senator Gold: I hope not, but I am wondering whether the language is broad enough to extend to a situation where after the cetacean is cured or stitched up it remains there and it remains open to public viewing, though not in the way in which the SeaWorld shows have been organized.
In other words, would long-term care because the cetacean can't be released ever again into the wild be covered by your exemption as you see it?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Senator Sinclair: I have listened to the questions and the answers and have read the material, including probably close to 1,000 emails that have come to me since somehow my name got connected to you, senator.
Mr. Moore: Those are the hazards.
Senator Sinclair: Yes, I understand that. The bottom line becomes the answer to these two questions: Does education of the public including young children in your view necessarily require captivity of healthy animals such as these?
Mr. Moore: I would say not.
Senator Sinclair: Can you explain that?
Mr. Moore: There are different ways of educating people, whether it's by film, by demonstration, by lecture or by taking these young people out into the wild to do whale-watching in the natural habitat. To me that is a lot more educational than looking at a creature that is not really moving like it naturally does and not doing the other things it naturally does but is sitting in this fish bowl and looking back at you. What is that? I find it depressing to think about it.
Senator Sinclair: Senator Plett pointed out that there are really only two institutions in Canada that will be affected by this legislation: Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium.
Are you aware of any information, any research or any data that could assist the senators to come to a determination as to the extent to which those two institutions depend upon the captivity of sea whales for their income? Do you know?
Mr. Moore: No, I don't. It seems to me that Marineland is a breeding ground. Vancouver does the same thing. What is driving it? Vancouver is talking about bringing back two of its belugas from another facility. I don't know if they sold them or rented them, but they obviously bred them and transported them to another place. Now they are bringing them back.
How is this happening? What is the commercial driver here? It is not education, I would suggest.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you.
The Chair: For the information of all committee members, we will have representatives from both institutions, the Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland, joining our hearings, and we have others that are feeding into that also.
Senator Munson: I'm glad Senator Sinclair asked that question. I just want to get a feel for word "education" and the idea of science and research. You wouldn't be opposed to the idea of quasi-public/private organizations having rescued animals in these "swimming pools," as you called them and having a non-public environment for scientific research where they can go about doing their work as opposed to having an economic driver for their work, which is paid admission to these things? In terms of the world of science this still is needed.
Would you be not opposed to those kinds of things happening, for example at Marineland or the Vancouver Aquarium? It is simply about their doing their proper work of science and research, and why should anyone pay money?
I ask that because Senator Christmas talked about adaptation and life with indigenous people. In the mid-nineties at CTV in your province of Nova Scotia I recall that I did a national news story called "A Whale of a Dog Story." It was in Chedabucto Bay in Guysborough County. I did a five- or six-minute thing where every day this fisherman would go out in the bay with his dog. This beluga whale got lost from his pod, obviously trying to make it to the St. Lawrence or whatever, and every day that dog and that whale nuzzled each other.
They said that was unheard of, that with a sea animal it would never happen. Yet it happened every day, and we went out and did that story. If you want to get an education that is a wonderful way for people to get their education. Take your children and go out and see exactly what is happening in the environment.
I have been thinking, in returning to this conversation, about the idea of whales in a confined space with research being done and being done properly and letting them live out their lives through this research because they can never go back to the environment I just talked about. Is that a helpful thought?
Mr. Moore: It sounds pretty balanced to me. I think the ultimate and the real solution would be the project of Dr. Lori Marino to have sea pen sanctuaries in a small cove or a bay that you could curtain off and let the creatures live in the wild. If they are dependent upon humans for food, they could be fed and people could see them in the wild. It would be in a natural habitat at least.
The Chair: It will be an interesting study when we have "A Whale of a Dog Story" at our first meeting.
Senator Munson: I'm swamped by the ideas that are coming from the other senators here.
Senator Plett: Senator Moore, I may have misunderstood you so I want you to correct something. When Senator Hubley asked you a question I heard you say that SeaWorld does not use cetaceans anymore. What was the comment you made about SeaWorld? That obviously wasn't correct.
Mr. Moore: It was that California passed a law similar to this law and SeaWorld supported it.
Senator Plett: But they still have cetaceans. They do not breed them.
Mr. Moore: It was a law to wind it up and to end it.
Senator Plett: But they still have them. I wasn't sure what you said.
I want to agree with Senator Christmas when he suggested that these whales are giving themselves up, if you will, for food or whatever it is, and that they need to be killed and killing is sometimes brutal.
However, further to that, a beluga research program at the Vancouver Aquarium is the only marine science centre where Canada's scientists may access beluga whales for research that requires the participation of research-trained animals. Shutting down this program means shutting down this science.
Are you in support, then, of ending scientific research needed to save endangered species?
Mr. Moore: Absolutely not. Senator, I repeat. My bill does not end research. It respects research. It encourages research, to look after rescued cetaceans, and to continue to do research on those that they may now have in their facilities.
What Vancouver said in its press release is not true, senator. The bill does not do that.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator McInnis: While we have the senator before us, do we have any idea of how many cetaceans there are available for research? Has anyone documented this to your knowledge?
Mr. Moore: Do you mean how many are in captivity now?
Senator McInnis: Not just that, availability. They say haphazard.
Mr. Moore: Yes, I heard you say that. I don't know if research has been done on that.
Senator McInnis: We can ask that later. To your knowledge is any research done in the wild?
Mr. Moore: It's the ultimate place for it to happen.
Senator McInnis: I know that, but is there any now?
Mr. Moore: You would have to ask the scientists. I know there is. I know that Dr. Hal Whitehead at Dalhousie University, a marine biologist, has done considerable research totally in the wild. He will be coming before you. He will be very informative, senator. This has been his career.
The Chair: Unless somebody else has a question, I want to advise the committee, as we have touched on before, that most members have received a list of witnesses that are coming forward. Basically, steering approved the list we sent around with Max and Odette. We could try to do a couple of panels of like-minded individuals rather than meet everyone on an individual basis because we would be here forever. We believe we can fit the couple that has come forward this week into panels that we've already established.
I don't want to go beyond four in a panel. I want to keep it to three or four and try to have a theme to our meeting. If we're going to deal with Aquariums, for example, let's have people from both Aquariums at the table, and so on and so forth. We're open to suggestions, but that's the route we're planning on taking.
As I said, we received a couple of new names this week, but we feel they are in line with ones that we already had in place.
It has been a very interesting first meeting on this bill. I think it's going to be an interesting discussion over the next number of weeks. Certainly we look forward to hearing from Senator Moore. I'm sure every now and again you'll find time to send along your five cents worth, if necessary. We reserve the right, sir, to call you back if we have to.
With that, I will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)