Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 13 - Evidence - April 4, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 4, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), met this day at 6:15 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. I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to ask the senators with us this evening to introduce themselves, beginning on my immediate right.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, from the Gulf region, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I apologize for our late start, but we just finished in the Senate Chamber a few minutes ago.
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 this evening to have our witnesses, and I would ask them to introduce themselves before we begin.
Naomi Rose, Animal Welfare Institute: I am the marine mammal scientist for the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington D.C.
Rob Laidlaw, Director, Zoocheck Inc.: I represent a group called Zoocheck Inc. We are based in Toronto and we have been on the scene in Canada for about 33 years.
The Chair: I thank our guests for taking the time to be with us this evening.
We will hear your opening remarks and then we will go to the senators for questions. The floor is yours.
Mr. Laidlaw: Good evening, everyone. I wanted to focus my remarks today on the fact that Bill S-203, for all intents and purposes, is recognizing and codifying much of the existing situation in Canada and what is on the immediate horizon.
I actually find it quite curious that Bill S-203 is being opposed by anyone including my colleagues in the aquarium industry when it will have such a minimal impact on what they actually do.
Bill S-203 proposes changes to three pieces of legislation: The Criminal Code of Canada, the Fisheries Act, and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act which we all know as WAPPRIITA.
I don't think the proposed changes to the Criminal Code of Canada will have any impact whatsoever on the Vancouver Aquarium or on Marineland, the two facilities that currently keep cetaceans in Canada, because the cetaceans they are now keeping would be grandfathered under the law.
As well it should be noted that the Vancouver Aquarium in 1996 pledged their intent not to acquire any wild-caught whales and recently stated their intention to phase out cetacean-keeping entirely by 2029, although a recent Vancouver Park Board vote to prohibit cetaceans in Stanley Park may expedite that process somewhat.
In the case of Marineland, they currently hold in excess of 45 belugas, more than all U.S. aquaria combined. Even with no additional imports it's likely they will still be displaying belugas 15, 20 or more years into the future with their numbers declining only incrementally over time.
In addition, the current owner of Marineland is elderly. When the facility changes hands, as it inevitably will, it is entirely possible it may be moved in a different direction, perhaps even involving the sale of the property for another kind of development and the relocation of whales elsewhere. That is a real possibility.
With regard to the Bill S-203 proposed changes to the Fisheries Act it seems to me to be really codifying into law a situation that has already existed in Canada for quite some time.
Orca captures in Canada haven't occurred since the 1970s. The last beluga captures in Canada were in 1992 when the John G. Shedd Aquarium of Chicago came and captured four beluga whales. If the last captures of whales for public display were 25 years ago, or 2.5 decades ago, surely enough time has gone by to recognize officially that this practice has ended and will not resume.
The proposed changes to WAPPRIITA are also entirely reasonable and would be the latest in an extensive series of events in North America that include the U.S. government's denial of the Georgia Aquarium's application to allow the import of 18 wild-caught beluga whales from Russia. That government's designation of Russia's Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga population, the population of belugas most heavily exploited by the aquarium industry and reportedly the source of many of the Marineland's belugas, has depleted, ending all U.S. trade in individuals from that population.
SeaWorld announced that they will no longer breed orcas or use them in theatrical shows and will be phasing orcas out of their facilities entirely. The State of California codified into law parts of that corporate policy by banning orca breeding and shows. Ontario announced a ban on the keeping and import of orca whales.
The National Aquarium announced the retirement of its dolphins to a seaside sanctuary, and the aforementioned Vancouver Aquarium pledged in 1996 not to acquire wild-caught whales. Their recently announced phase-out of cetacean keeping by 2029 and the subsequent vote by the Vancouver Park Board a few weeks ago prohibits cetacean keeping in Stanley Park.
In my view Bill S-203 is a very conservative bill that simply formalizes much of what is already happening or is on the horizon, and it does so in a way that shouldn't be onerous to any stakeholder.
As I said, there are only two facilities in Canada currently keeping cetaceans for public display. It's the Vancouver Aquarium, which has announced its intention to get out of the cetacean-keeping business, and the privately owned Marineland that has enough whales to keep their pools populated probably for decades. Given the circumstances, I couldn't imagine a better time for a bill like Bill S-203.
In closing, I would like to point out that this is an easy thing for Canada to do. It comes at no political cost and would be applauded throughout the world, just as other initiatives of this kind have been in the past. This is a win-win situation for everyone involved.
It is exactly for those reasons that I encourage you to facilitate Bill S-203 moving on through the legislative process.
The Chair: Ms. Rose, you have the floor.
Ms. Rose: Thank you very much for having us here. I'm a cetacean biologist and I will approach my testimony from that direction.
As a cetacean biologist I believe that these species inherently cannot thrive in captivity. They have certain biological and ecological characteristics that make it difficult for them to thrive in captivity.
Professionally, I have been addressing the question of the welfare of captive whales and dolphins for about 25 years. My formulated arguments against the practice of keeping these animals in captivity are science based.
In the early years of this debate the arguments were largely ethical, but now we know so much more about them from studies that were conducted starting in the 1960s and the 1970s. Now with technology they are moving forward into the 21st century with drone technology, more advanced tags and so on.
We know so much more about them ecologically and biologically that we can formulate science-based arguments to demonstrate that the finest state of the art facilities can only provide these animals with space that is one-ten thousandth of one per cent of their natural home ranges. With even the smallest identified home range for a dolphin or an orca, one-ten thousandth of one per cent is all we can give them in captivity.
Common sense alone, let alone science, argues that this is a species, this is a taxon, that cannot be provided for adequately in captivity.
The zoo community in general often argues people will only protect and love what they know. By this they mean that people have to see, touch and interact with these animals to learn to love them and want to protect them. That is why we need zoos and aquariums; that is what they say.
However, if this pro-captive display argument is true, then it means an awful lot of species are doomed to extinction. I don't think this is where the zoos and aquariums mean for their logic to go. Humpback whales are not held in captivity and yet people love them. They are recovering; on the East Coast of North America they are recovering and nobody has ever seen one in captivity. Clearly the argument that you must see the living animal, touch it and interact with it is not true, and thankfully so.
I fully support Bill S-203. It is a very reasonable law. It is a very rational approach. It grandfathers in existing animals and gives the zoo and aquarium community a long phase-out period. It is not asking these facilities to close overnight.
I would also like to point out, as Mr. Laidlaw said, that this trend is already happening. You are riding a wave with this bill that has already crested and is leading into shore.
Virgin Holidays, TripAdvisor and most recently Thomas Cook have restricted their promotion of swimming with the dolphin encounters in holiday destinations. Costa Rica, India, California and South Carolina in my country, and even your province of Ontario have restricted the display of these species already.
These things are already happening. This is not anything new. It is the culmination of 25 years of work for me, and I am quite excited about the future. And I think what the future holds is seaside sanctuaries. You have heard about some of that already.
There are five viable projects currently under way around the world: three in Europe and two in North America. Four of them are for bottlenose dolphins and one is a cold-water sanctuary capable of housing belugas, orcas or even Pacific white-sided dolphins, any cold-water species.
It's going to take a lot of effort; it's going to take a lot of money. We are not unrealistic about that. There are sanctuaries, as Mr. Laidlaw can explain to you, for terrestrial wildlife all around the world: bears, elephants, tigers. The concept is not new. It is just the taxon that would be new for the sanctuary community.
How you raise funds for large charismatic megafauna is the same, as is the business model. We're not proposing something radical. It is a little different because these animals are marine, but in terms of the business model it is established.
That is the feature we would like to move toward but this bill doesn't even require that. No bill I know of currently that is being considered seriously would require that. They are all grandfathering in the animals that currently are in captivity and are giving the zoo and aquarium community a chance to phase out the practice.
I think it is reasonable. I fully support it and thank you very much for considering it so thoughtfully. As an American, I have to express my gratitude for your thoughtful consideration of this bill.
The Chair: We will go to our first questions.
Senator McInnis: As you can appreciate this is an extremely emotional issue. We as the committee have heard and will continue to hear all sides of this issue. The challenge in the end is for us to make the proper decision. We will certainly have considerable evidence from all sides.
What is the value of the educational aspect of seeing these mammals in captivity, if you can quantify it, versus what you can see in the wild? What is that? How effective would the examination and the studies in the wild be? What would we lose, if we didn't have these aquariums? Could you give us a further explanation?
Dr. Marino was here last Thursday morning talking about seaside sanctuaries. Can you elaborate on that a bit? I would love to have one off the shores of Nova Scotia if we could have one. I'm not quite sure how they would operate and how they would replace the aquariums. Could you talk about that?
Ms. Rose: I am going to propose something rather radical and turn your question on its head. When it comes to certain species, and all whales and dolphins fall into this category for me, I think all zoos and aquariums harm education. I find them unhelpful in the extreme. Almost all of them are commercial facilities. Not all; there are several municipal or non-profit facilities.
But it is an expensive proposition to keep these animals, so they need to make money. They charge a fairly hefty entrance fee even when they are non-profit. When they are for profit, $100 will get you through the gate for the day. That is a lot of money for a family of four.
When you have that kind of profit motive, your corporate education isn't necessarily that accurate. I can tell you as a cetacean biologist that Marineland in particular is a good example of this and the Vancouver Aquarium, not so much. What you are hearing about these animals once you are inside the gate is almost entirely incorrect: the flopped- over dorsal fin of orcas, the social behaviour of dolphins, the distance they can cover and how deep they can dive. Bottlenose dolphins can dive up to 1,300 feet or 450 metres. The deepest tank or the deepest sea pen anywhere in the world is 10 metres.
When children see a dolphin performing in a show, they don't see reality. They are seeing a façade. They are seeing a mask. They are seeing something that is actually false. As a scientist, as an advocate and even as an educator — because I do a lot of lectures — I find it very disturbing. So I actually think part of the reason we are having some trouble with our conservation of the marine environment these days is that people go to places like Marineland, SeaWorld or a swim with the dolphins program in the Caribbean and think everything is fine with whales and dolphins: They are all happy, jumping around and performing for you. You, being the powers that be, wouldn't allow that if there were anything wrong with the oceans. You wouldn't allow that if there were anything wrong with the oceans or anything wrong with their populations when in fact there is a lot wrong with them.
I work at the International Whaling Commission scientific committee and I follow the conservation issues. There is a lot wrong with the oceans these days. And I actually think that zoos and aquariums are making it worse when it comes to these species. It is not all species, but these species, because they have to pretty much lie to the public to make it seem okay that they are actually in this box of water and can't even dive beyond 10 metres.
That's the answer to your first question. I don't think we would lose anything. I think we would actually gain if we ended the display of these animals. I think high-tech CGI animatronics, animation, responsible whale-watching, and a good coffee table book with some fantastic photographs, can replace a show at Marineland very well and in fact far better. That is the educational answer.
As far as the seaside sanctuary is concerned, I am on the board of directors of the same sanctuary that Dr. Marino described to you. We are proposing netting off a bay or a cove and giving them a lot more space. That is really the goal. These are wide-ranging predators that are really constrained in how much they can move. Because they are so intelligent and social it drives them, if not crazy, into at least a bit of a depression and they don't thrive. This is an attempt to allow them to thrive even though they will still be restricted in their space and cared for by people. I can assure you they are not competent to survive in the wild for the most part. We would still care for them in a sanctuary but they would have more space.
In terms of how it would work legally and logistically, we are learning as we go because it has never been done before. However, the business model has already been established with other species. There are sanctuaries for large charismatic megafauna like elephants, tigers, bears and primates, intelligent social animals. We have provided sanctuaries for all of those taxa. This is not starting de novo. We are working from an established model.
Mr. Laidlaw: I will go back to the educational argument. I can't comment on the experience of people when they are viewing animals in the wild, but this is something my organization has looked at very recently with regard to zoo and aquarium displays.
We have examined the scientific literature, the peer-reviewed journal articles that are published on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and all types of scientific search engines. There are a number of papers. In fact there are dozens and dozens and dozens of them. Very few, if any, of them actually support the contention that casual visitors going to a zoo or aquarium and looking at animals for a period of time learn in the way that zoos and aquariums claim they do. There is little evidence to that effect and a lot of evidence showing that they don't learn anything at all.
More importantly, zoos and aquariums claim they are creating legions of conservationists that go out into the field and change their behaviour to benefit animals and the environment. There is no evidence that people who attended and looked at animals and read the factoids on the graphics accompanying cages, pools and tanks, which are not taken home, change their behaviour post zoo or post aquarium visits one iota.
Another thing to think about when you are looking at these animals is that they are displayed completely out of their ecological context. These animals are like fragments of nature in an alien type of context so that people can readily and conveniently come to see them.
For a lot of these animals, about all you can see is their size, shape and colour. That is not always accurate. If you look at animals like Przewalski's horses, their colour phases will change. If you look at polar bears, they become pear- shaped as they lose their musculature. They don't look like polar bears in the wild.
I've seen tigers, lions or other big cats in the wild. Animals that are in captivity are obese because of lack of activity. They can't do anything they should normally be able to do if they were in the wild. They don't look like those animals in the wild.
At most, you will see something vaguely reminiscent of the animal in the wild in terms of size, shape and colour. You will not learn anything about patrolling a home range territory; finding mates; normal maternal behaviours of animals; and how they form their personal relationships with each other, with extended families or with other animals in their home ranges. You are not learning anything about that.
I would challenge anyone to show that casual visitors actually learn anything based, if nothing else, on the length of time that people look at animals.
We have done surveys at Metropolitan Toronto Zoo and at other facilities which show that the average length of time viewing animals is between 8 and 90 seconds. I challenge anyone to convince me or show me any evidence that you can learn much looking at an animal for between 8 and 90 seconds.
When we were working to get elephants out of the Toronto zoo, internal surveys were done at the zoo. We did our own look at people. We did two sample sizes of 500 and found that the average length of time people looked at the elephants was 77 seconds. They are big attraction animals, the most charismatic in the zoo. You would expect everyone to run to, wait and watch them, and 77 seconds was the average length of time.
The polls done internally in the zoo showed that people didn't really care if the elephants were there or not. They just wanted animals to see because they were coming for a nice day out. It is the same for the aquarium.
Even if you look at the time people spend at exhibits, it is beyond reasonableness to say that people are learning much, except perhaps in some cases the size, shape and colour of the animals.
If you look at academic literature in the zoo world, and I am talking about materials coming from zoo people themselves, they acknowledge that this factoid-based graphics presentation of information and their narration on shows, which is usually simplistic and factoid based, do not work. All you have to do is look at the literature to see that.
What they have moved to is the idea they are connecting people with wildlife. When you see a gorilla and stare him in the eye, or see a beluga whale and stare him in the eye, somehow magically a transformation occurs in people. When they leave the zoo forever their lives are changed and they are out there trying to help wildlife. There is no evidence of that.
They actually have a term for it. It's called the zoo proposition, this amorphous connection people are supposed to get. What I say to that is: First, there is no proof and, second, there are all kinds of better ways of creating a connection with wildlife.
I write children's books. I'm working on my tenth book now about bats. They are in thousands of schools and libraries across North America and in other countries. I've had the opportunity to talk with literally tens of thousands of kids from coast to coast, and I can tell you that they don't need to see the animal in the cage.
We often hear that a child, a neighbour's child or a senior citizen went to the zoo and they had a smile on their face; there was this connection. When they don't know anything about the experience of the animals, when they don't know anything about the behavioural ecology and natural history of the animals and when they think everything is okay and the animals are safeguarded, they come away with a smile on their faces. However, if there is full disclosure and they have some understanding of what they are actually looking at and how these animals live in the wild, those smiles quickly vanish.
It doesn't matter if they are seven years old or 70 years old: When you have full disclosure of information, that connection and that smile vanish. I've seen it time and time again. There are better ways of doing this.
The Chair: I appreciate the time, but we have a long list of questioners. I do hesitate at all times to cut anybody off. I don't like doing that, but I am going to start sticking to some time limits here because we are running a bit late and we have a lot of questioners.
Senator McInnis: I will be very quick. Both of you presented a compelling case and obviously have some knowledge. We're going to hear from a doctor who has been a veterinarian for 45 years at Marineland.
Let me quote from what he testified before the Ontario legislature when they were putting Bill 80 through and speaking of Kiska, the killer whale: ". . . she has been observed by and has taught approximately 30 million people about killer whales and marine life . . . . [It is] a tribute to the success of Marineland in educating the public and making them aware of these magnificent animals.'' The mammals held there are stress-free, psychologically fit and overall healthy. That comment was made by a veterinarian who has been there. That's the dichotomy; that's the discussion that will take place. That's the other side of the coin.
Ms. Rose: I totally appreciate that. Unfortunately for you, this can sound a bit like he said/she said, but when you look at the data, when you look into the literature, Kiska is a really good example. I know who you are talking about, Dr. Lanny Cornell, and Kiska is completely abnormal. There is nothing normal about her. Yes, she has been viewed by 30 million people. Every one of these people, if they had a good day at Marineland, walked away with a false image of killer whales.
I am a killer whale biologist. I spent years in the field with these animals in British Columbia, here in Canada. Kiska is completely abnormal. I have spent hours watching her as well. There is nothing about her that teaches any child an accurate picture of killer whales.
I go back to my previous comment. I actually think Kiska is harming our ability to teach young people how much these animals need from us in the wild to survive, to be protected and to be conserved. With all due respect to Dr. Cornell, he is simply defending his own career. It isn't true that those 30 million people learned anything at all.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
The Chair: I stress time constraint, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Well, chair, hopefully the answers will then accommodate that because that's where our problem was in the last question, not in the questioner.
Ms. Rose, first of all, I have a list of questions, so cut me off, chair, when you want and I'll go in the next round.
I want to talk a bit about your certification first of all. I will be very brief and I don't think we need long answers. Are you a board certified veterinarian?
Ms. Rose: Absolutely not.
Senator Plett: What was your Ph.D topic?
Ms. Rose: The social dynamics of killer whales in British Columbia.
Senator Plett: When was your last peer-reviewed paper on whales and dolphins and what was it on?
Ms. Rose: I would say last year or the year before, and I work on policy issues mostly now. Obviously I'm not in the field any more.
Senator Plett: But you have done a peer-reviewed paper.
Ms. Rose: Absolutely, I published over 40 of them.
Senator Plett: Would you send them to our committee?
Ms. Rose: I would love to do that, absolutely.
Senator Plett: First of all let me apologize, chair. We have a few too many things going on today. We were late out of the chamber so I apologize for my tardiness.
You are, Ms. Rose, a proponent of placing whales and dolphins into sea pens. Do you call them sanctuaries or sea pens? What are they?
Ms. Rose: There are already sea pens all around the world. These are dolphinariums, public display facilities and mostly swim with the dolphins programs. If you are familiar with the pens that tuna are raised in or whatever, that's what we are talking about. They are net pens in the marine environment usually next to a shore.
What we are talking about with seaside sanctuary is netting off a bay or a cove that is conservatively 50 to 100 times larger than that.
Senator Plett: Similar to what our previous witness said when talking about sanctuaries.
Ms. Rose: Yes, exactly.
Senator Plett: You are a proponent of the sea pens and you have been quoted as saying that the idea that sea pens in and of themselves are dangerous is utterly ludicrous.
Ms. Rose: Yes, I said that.
Senator Plett: That would be your assertion.
Ms. Rose: This came from SeaWorld saying that sea cages, which is what they call them, are dangerous. That's their quote. I was responding to the claim that sea cages are dangerous. On its face that is a baseless comment.
Senator Plett: I need to make one comment here and maybe I shouldn't. I was with her, the killer whale. She looked pretty normal to me. Again I'm not a professional either but she looked pretty normal smiling to me when I put my hand on her.
Ms. Rose: They smile even when they are dead.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. So do people occasionally.
Where would you get your whales from for your sanctuary?
Ms. Rose: From the public display community.
Senator Plett: How would you get them? Would you import them?
Ms. Rose: It depends on where the sanctuary is and where the animals are. They might be imported or they might be transported within the borders of a single country.
Senator Plett: Are you supportive of the part of the bill that says:
No person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise — whether living or dead — or sperm, a tissue culture or embryo of a cetacean.
Are you supportive of that?
Ms. Rose: My understanding is that there are exemptions for certain practices.
Senator Plett: No, there is no exemption there. Section 4 of the bill is very clear.
The Wild Animal Plant Protection and Regulation of International Provincial Trade Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
It is just what I quoted. Are you supportive of that section of the bill?
Ms. Rose: I was involved in the passage of the bill in California. We had a provision in that bill, which is now law, to allow animals to be transported to seaside sanctuaries.
Senator Plett: This one doesn't. Are you supportive of that part of the bill?
Ms. Rose: I would want that possibility.
Senator Plett: So you are not supportive of it.
Ms. Rose: I am supportive of that provision with amendments.
Senator Plett: But you are not supportive of that part of the bill.
Ms. Rose: Yes, I am, with amendments for that exemption. Every bill has exemptions, sir.
Senator Plett: The sponsor of this one said that he would propose some amendments but certainly not that one.
Mr. Laidlaw, did your organization participate in the Province of Ontario's two-year process to develop its regulations? If so, can you describe the level of engagement and steps Ontario took to study the issue of the new regulations for cetaceans in captivity?
Mr. Laidlaw: The Ontario government convened a fast-track consultation process with a number of different players. They involved internal government players as one group of stakeholders, animal welfare groups as a second group, and industry members as a third group. There were other people who contributed to the process.
The fast-track consultation led to various drafts of regulations that were circulated to various stakeholders for comments, and then the government internally worked with that commentary and developed standards that were then circulated.
Those standards went through a process where all of the stakeholders could provide additional commentary. Eventually they were incorporated into Regulation 60/09 of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Senator Plett: Did the Province of Ontario consider the needs of belugas in captivity when developing regulations? I know Ontario determined that no new orcas should be bred or transferred to captivity in the province. Can you tell us what the decision of the Ontario regulations was regarding belugas?
Mr. Laidlaw: The animal welfare groups involved in the consultation unanimously agreed that all cetaceans should be given equal consideration under the law.
The government had identified certain criteria that were used for their position on orca whales, but those criteria applied equally to other cetaceans. All of the animal welfare groups had advocated that there be a prohibition extended to include the other cetaceans.
I'm not fully aware of the Ontario government's motivations, but I guess they were trying to find a middle ground among all stakeholders and they chose not to do that. There was also a bit of politics there. They knew that banning orcas was an easy thing to do. It was unlikely there would be more orcas ever coming into the province. They grandfathered the only existing orca in the province and knew that they could get very good optics from it, which is exactly what they achieved.
There were several things occurring. They were looking for middle ground. They didn't want to go very far with this, even though the trend on a continent-wide basis and globally was definitely moving in a certain direction. They were able to achieve their good optics and check their political checklist with what they did.
Senator Plett: My question was specifically: What the decision was regarding belugas?
Mr. Laidlaw: The decision was to have the Ontario SPCA try to mitigate concerns about the keeping of belugas in captivity through Regulation 60/09.
Senator Gold: This is a question for you, Ms. Rose. You alluded to the artificiality of the environments within which the cetaceans are kept in captivity and suggested the psychological and other harm they might suffer.
Based upon your research, could you elaborate on the harm, physical and other, to cetaceans in captivity?
Ms. Rose: Yes. The U.S. government recently underwent a regulatory process to update their care and maintenance regulations for captive marine mammals, all marine mammals, and there was a public comment period.
For the purposes of that, I spent a great deal of time researching the literature to try to find what the latest knowledge of the ecology and biology of these animals was. It ranged from whales and dolphins, seals and sea lions, polar bears and manatees.
How far do they range? How deep do they dive? How large are their group sizes? How long do they live? What diseases afflict them?
I got a couple of interns in and we dug deep into the scientific literature. I ended up writing a 60-page comment letter with 140 references to try to address my concerns with the current care and maintenance regulations in the U.S. which are considered normal for the world and what I wanted them to be.
I'm naturally trying to work within the system to improve the welfare of these animals, understanding that they are not all going to go to a sanctuary tomorrow. This practice will not disappear overnight. Their welfare is being harmed right now and I'm trying to work within the system to improve that welfare.
What is it that is harmful? One of the studies I found was conducted in Mexico. It determined that when bottlenose dolphins are held in sea pens versus concrete tanks, they swim more and they log less. If you don't know what logging is, it's exactly what it sounds like. It is when a cetacean hangs motionless in the water like a log. It is extraordinarily rare to see that in the wild but it is extremely common in captivity. They swim more, they log less, and they have lower cortisol levels. Cortisol is a chronic stress hormone, when you hold them in a sea pen. Those things happen versus in a concrete tank where they have higher stress levels, swim less and log more.
It took some doing to find that study. That kind of basic animal welfare science is not being done in North America other than Mexico. It is not being done in Europe. It is not being done anywhere except this one study I found in Mexico.
What it showed me was that when they are in natural habitat, if I had to take a guess as a biologist, I would say it's an acoustic issue as well as a space issue because the sea pens are larger than the tanks as well as being acoustically more natural. These are extraordinarily acoustically based animals. They listen and hear far better than we do, up into very high frequencies, and when they are in tanks, the tank doesn't change from day to day so they shut down their echolocation. They can still use it. It functions perfectly well but they don't use it very often. That study has also been done. They decrease the use of their echolocation when they're in captivity in a tank, but they listen to pump noises all day long and to all sorts of vibrations that come through the concrete walls that are low frequency and disturbing. It is sort of like living near an airport, if you will. That's hard enough on human beings. When you are an acoustic animal, as opposed to a visual one, it is worse.
In a sea pen at least they have no concrete walls, where everything is transmitted through the concrete and the vibrations are actually felt through the water column. They're living in a more natural acoustic environment that actually helps them. Apparently it shows in the salivary cortisol levels, in their swimming behaviour and in their logging behaviour.
Another thing I discovered was something I didn't actually want to hear, but I go where the data take me. The U.S. Navy has 70 bottlenose dolphins in captivity in sea pens in San Diego Harbor. I don't like that program. It's a military use of wildlife. I don't really like it, but the data show that these animals live longer than dolphins in tanks.
That program has been there since 1955 or so. They had a lot of data on a lot of animals and how long they live. They determined that their survival rates were longer because they keep them in sea pens and take them for ocean walks. If you know anything about the navy program, you know that they take the animals out for walks, ordinance retrieval and deep dives. They get to dive deep and apparently it allows them to live longer.
I have just one more point. They also seem to suffer from more diseases. Because of the low-level stress that the cortisol levels show they tend to get pneumonia, septicemia and erysipelas far more frequently than is seen in stranded animals, wild animals, and so on.
Senator Gold: Could you send references to any of that material?
Ms. Rose: I would be happy to send you the comment letter that I wrote which has all the references, and the PDFs are actually available.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. My question is more about the seaside sanctuaries. Are there any existing seaside sanctuaries that can handle a beluga whale?
Ms. Rose: I would like to request that we not get too hung up on the seaside sanctuary concept because, first, the bill doesn't address it; and, second, none exist yet.
We're working on it but absolutely none exist yet. It is a concept at the moment that we are trying to turn into reality.
We are not asking any of the facilities in Canada to retire their animals to seaside sanctuaries. We think if we build one they will come, but this bill grandfathers them in and allows them to display them and make money off them into the future, as Mr. Laidlaw said.
Senator Enverga: For those existing whales and cetaceans in the tanks, the alternative that you told us about is namely putting them in seaside sanctuaries.
Ms. Rose: It's an alternative we would like to offer but we can't force the issue.
Senator Enverga: The thing is that it is not proven yet, right?
Ms. Rose: In practice it has never been done. Conceptually, the concept has been proven for terrestrial mammals.
Senator Enverga: Technically it's a theory that it would be good to put them in seaside sanctuaries.
Ms. Rose: We are pursuing the theory, yes. I would say, though, as I mentioned to the senator, that sea pens do exist. They are dolphinariums. They are swim-with mostly in the Caribbean and in Israel. The engineering of how you work with animals in sea pens has been established. We would not be reinventing the wheel entirely.
Senator Enverga: They are smaller sea pens.
Ms. Rose: They are much smaller than what we are envisioning, absolutely.
Senator Enverga: What I am worried about with creating big seaside sanctuaries is that you have to put the net in the cove or in a huge swath of water. I am worried that you will put the predator in there permanently, which will disturb the ecosystem of the whole place you enclose. It is different and difficult for the animals that are there right now.
Ms. Rose: There are criteria we would have to meet, including environmental assessments that most governments would require. There are criteria that we would have to meet for our own purposes in terms of water flow and tidal changes. Water turnover would be key.
Senator Enverga: Have you found a place?
Ms. Rose: We are working on it. I don't mean to be flip but we are working on it.
Senator Enverga: There is no point to approve this because there is no alternative for existing cetaceans that are there.
Ms. Rose: I don't mean to be disrespectful but that is not what the bill even addresses anyway. It grandfathers in these animals. They get to stay where they are. They would live out their lives in the facilities they are in. They would continue to be displayed. The theme park would continue to have rollercoasters and eventually this species would no longer be held over time.
It is a reasonable proposal to phase it out over time. It gives them plenty of time to transition to a new business model.
Senator Enverga: But at this time it is not an alternative.
Ms. Rose: At this time it is not an alternative. That is just logical, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for agreeing to join us this evening to share your knowledge. Your arguments pertain specifically to cetaceans, given their acoustic sensitivity. According to your diagnosis, it is not ideal for a wild animal — be it a bear, a lion, an elephant or a cetacean — to live in captivity. The bill focuses specifically on cetaceans.
The laws of nature are fair, without pity and without preference. An injured animal left in nature may be attacked by predators. In some cases, animals, like humans, have to be kept in a safe place for their own good, even though they prefer to live in freedom. Are there any cases where keeping them in decent conditions contributes to the well-being of those individuals?
[English]
Ms. Rose: The data indicate exactly the opposite. There have been several meta-analyses of large, wide-ranging predators/carnivores including tigers, polar bears and a couple of other species. What seem to be key are the territory they cover and their wide-ranging nature. If they are predators/carnivores and they have small home ranges, they adjust to captivity relatively well. If they are wide-ranging in their ecology, they do very poorly in captivity. This was a meta-analysis of many species.
I would argue that the most wide-ranging of all predators are the cetaceans. Orcas cover tens of thousands of miles in a year or hundreds of miles in a day. With bottlenose dolphins, the smallest home range I could identify was 600,000 square metres. That is the smallest home range. Most of them live in hundreds of kilometres of home range. They are wide-ranging predators by definition.
This meta-analysis was published in Nature, one of the most prestigious journals there is. It indicated they live shorter lives than their wild counterparts, breed more poorly, have lower birth rates than their wild counterparts, and have more stereotypies such as pacing behaviour and neuroses.
Going back to Senator Plett, he mentioned that in the photograph that he took of Kiska she looked perfectly normal to him. That photograph is actually of a stance you never see out in the wild. When their head is out of the water and their mouth is open, that is a captive animal. They never do that in the wild. That smile is her begging for food. It is never seen in the wild.
I have spent hundreds of hours watching these animals in the wild — Dr. Cornell never has, by the way — and they don't do that. Logically, you need to think about that. Food comes from the sky in captivity. It is below the surface of the water in the wild.
These are animals that need those characteristics of their habitat. They need space. They need prey, or they develop these problems.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Here is the question I was asking. I am from Rimouski, located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which has a high concentration of belugas and migrating whales. If I understand correctly, you prefer to leave an injured individual in nature to face predators.
Ms. Rose: Okay, I understand.
Senator Forest: Are there no cases where, like in the case of humans, some individuals must be kept in safe places for their own good? Are there no cases, in the entire population, where, for their own good, despite the constraints and if the standards are adequate, they can be kept somewhere? The natural environment is without a doubt the best place for them. However, it is said that nature does not discriminate, that it is without pity and without preference. In such a context, I assume that it may be preferable for some individuals to be kept in captivity.
[English]
Ms. Rose: I am not a proponent of better dead than in captivity. When some animals are stranded or rescued from injuries or illness, especially if those illnesses or injuries are human caused, I believe it is our responsibility to rescue those animals and rehabilitate them. There will be some that cannot be released again. If they cannot be released again, those animals would always be available for research whether in a public display facility or in a seaside sanctuary.
I don't think we will ever run out of a supply of cetaceans to study in captivity because of the stranding and rescue issues. What we would like to do with our seaside sanctuaries is offer an alternative. It doesn't exist yet but we are working to make it reality.
Mr. Laidlaw: With regard to animals that are injured or in other kinds of need of assistance, you have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. If you look at the rehabilitation community for terrestrial wildlife, you will see there is an established ethic of humane euthanasia. If an animal can't be put into a circumstance where its biological, social or behavioural needs are going to be met, that ethic dictates that perhaps the animal should be euthanized.
You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. At the core of whatever decision is made, it has to be whether that animal's needs be met. If not, you need to make that difficult decision to do the right thing and not put that animal into that circumstance.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You claim that the educational aspect of that type of facility may be questionable. I believe that there is clearly an awareness-raising aspect that allows people to come into contact with that kind of wildlife. However, I don't believe that there is an educational aspect to it.
[English]
Mr. Laidlaw: I would like to make a couple of comments with regard to education.
Senator Forest: Short ones.
Mr. Laidlaw: I'll try. Actually I will finish my previous answer. There are all kinds of other ways of doing it. There are all kinds of different facilities. There are specialists, reading facilities, conservation centres, sanctuaries, and all kinds of other models out there that are not really putting a great cost on the animals themselves and present animals in an entirely different way than you would in a zoo where people have unfettered access to look at animals.
As Dr. Rose said, there are these tremendous new technologies. In fact I am recently familiar with two. One is indoor whale-watching on Light Animal in Japan. I was in communication with its inventor of these life-size projections of dolphins and humpback whales on the walls of auditoriums or buildings you have. What's really interesting is that it engages kids because they are interactive. If you go up and touch them, they will interact with you.
There are all kinds of innovative technologies like that. There's a whole new fantastic facility called ORBi zoo in Japan. It's an immersive experience with wildlife. They are not live animals; it's all technology based.
There are all kinds of other examples of ways you can learn and connect with animals. As I said before I don't think people are learning from the signs and just looking at animals. I think there are better ways to do it that don't cost the animals anything.
Senator Watt: I will cover only the belugas because I don't know enough about the other species that you seem to be concerned about.
I believe that belugas have their needs. Would you agree that belugas are a migratory species?
Ms. Rose: Yes.
Senator Watt: You do.
Ms. Rose: They are a migratory species.
Senator Watt: Each month they move into different areas when they are migrating through the ocean along the coast?
Ms. Rose: Yes.
Senator Watt: In any given month they might have a particular need about which we don't have a clear understanding at the moment because of the lack of technological availability. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Rose: Technology is improving, but you are correct that it is difficult to study belugas because of their marginal habitat. Because of their lack of a dorsal fin it's hard to put a tag on them and so on, yes.
Senator Watt: Exactly. There is a time when belugas have to get into fresh water in order to be able to cleanse themselves.
Ms. Rose: Right, they molt.
Senator Watt: Yes, and they change their skin.
Ms. Rose: They do.
Senator Watt: Our responsibility as an Aboriginal person and a hunter, we are not allowed to interfere when they are in their destination and going into fresh water to molt.
Ms. Rose: It is a very high-energy endeavour. It drains them, so I think that is an appropriate management rule.
Senator Watt: That is an important part of what we have to protect as Aboriginal people and as hunters to make sure they carry on with what they are supposed to do in terms of their migration.
I am glad to hear there is an understanding by people who have the tendency to deal with animals in captivity. It doesn't matter what kind of animal it might be. They could be migratory birds, marine mammals or land animals, whatever. It makes me feel uneasy when we are not familiar with the amount of stress that probably applies to species in captivity and at the same time not able to identify when they are crying for change. We don't have the technology to understand a species when they are crying for change. Would you agree?
Ms. Rose: I agree. One thing that bothers me the most about holding this particular species in captivity is that it is an Arctic species. It is specially adapted, supremely well adapted to live in that environment and that environment cannot be provided in captivity.
One of the most recent new pieces of data that came out about belugas is that they can dive to 900 metres.
Senator Watt: Correct.
Ms. Rose: Again, the deepest tank I know of is 10 metres.
Senator Watt: That in itself would provide a tremendous amount of stress for that mammal.
Ms. Rose: Absolutely, being unable to dive when that is what you are adapted to do would be extremely stressful.
Senator Watt: True. Just imagine as humans being put in captivity, in a box or in jail. That is how the belugas behave when they feel stress within their own environment.
If animal should be released, I have some doubts whether that animal would survive after being in captivity for a certain number of years. I don't think they would survive. I don't think they would know how to survive.
Ms. Rose: I agree. They are intelligent animals who learn by cultural transmission. If their culture is in captivity, they wouldn't know how to survive in the wild. That is precisely why we are trying to develop sanctuaries because they cannot and should not, from a humane perspective, be released.
Senator Watt: If I understood you correctly, Dr. Rose, one of your points was recommending something better than holding them in tight captivity and placing them into a more natural habitat.
I'm thinking of the way they do it in certain countries. I don't believe we do it yet, except perhaps in the Newfoundland area where we keep salmon and fish in captivity, fence them in, in open water.
Ms. Rose: Fish farming, yes.
Senator Watt: That also has a negative component due to the fact that maybe a certain amount of disease could develop in the same way as disease develops on salmon when you keep them in open captivity.
Does anyone have real experience in that field to know whether there are subjected to bacteria or symptoms even though they are in a larger open area that is better than what they have now? Nevertheless, what are the symptoms or problems that have been identified under that type of captivity situation?
Ms. Rose: There are a few things. Again, we are not reinventing the wheel as far as sea pens are concerned. They already exist. The U.S. Navy has 70 dolphins in its sea pen facility in San Diego Harbor. Laying the groundwork and setting the precedent for how you manage disease, for example, have already been done. Some of the very best marine mammal veterinarians in the world have worked for the U.S. Navy program and have addressed those issues.
Crowding is really the problem in fish farms. We would absolutely avoid crowding because we are trying to give them more space per animal. Crowding is your issue in fish farming sea pens because when you crowd prisons or when you crowd animals together, disease spreads. We would avoid that.
Also the animals need to be screened for both active and inactive exposure to pathogens. We don't want to start any epidemics. We want to help, not harm, so we would absolutely take those things under consideration and have the best marine mammal vets consulting for us.
Senator Watt: What about the waste? Where would the waste go?
Ms. Rose: I was talking about water turnover. That has to be addressed. There has to be good water turnover.
Some sea pen facilities, dolphinariums and public display facilities are in very bad locations for that. They have picked a site for commercial reasons, not for ecological reasons. The water flow in those particular sea pens is very poor. You end up with algal overgrowth and killing the coral locally. It's a problem. Dolphins put out a lot of waste. Cetaceans put out a lot of waste. There has to be water turnover and no crowding: location, location, location.
Senator Watt: It is also the introduction to the other species to come in.
Ms. Rose: Absolutely.
Senator Watt: That is another factor. Thank you.
Senator Sinclair: I was curious about sea sanctuaries, particularly after the exchange between you and Senator Plett. I was curious about the reference that he made to the interprovincial trade act provision that you thought there was an exemption to.
Were you thinking about the exemption in the bill relating to cetaceans currently in captivity and those taken into captivity because of assistance or of something else?
Ms. Rose: There are a couple of things. One is that I thought there was an exception for rescue and rehabilitation. As far as a facility or seaside sanctuary being in Canada, you have quite a few belugas, for example 45 or more, that might need relocating to a sanctuary. They wouldn't be sent out of the country in that case. They would stay within the country.
Senator Sinclair: You are not suggesting the sea sanctuary would go out and capture more cetaceans and put them in the sea sanctuary.
Ms. Rose: No, sir. That is not its purpose. The ultimate goal of the sanctuary, any sanctuary, whether it is for bears, tigers or elephants, is to go out of business.
Senator Sinclair: You seem to be trying to get into business, so I was curious about how you were going to do that. It is about the existing captive animals.
Ms. Rose: Existing captive animals, no breeding, no imports, no captures.
Senator Sinclair: Other than rescues.
Ms. Rose: Exactly.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Laidlaw, I am not sure I heard you correctly, so I will try to make sure that I did.
If we as a committee decided to make an impact study of Bill S-203 on the Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland, am I hearing you say that there would be little or no impact from this bill on those two facilities?
Mr. Laidlaw: That is what I am suggesting. I think it is inevitable that with 45 belugas Marineland will change at some point in the not too distant future, whether it's through ownership change or other factors. They will still have animals in their tanks, probably equivalent to what other facilities currently use as viable numbers for display for possibly 15 or 20 or more years into the future.
There will be a gradual diminishment, an incremental diminishment over time, as deaths outpace births, but given the situation over the last 10 years or so I expect that they would have animals for a very long time, should they choose to keep the direction in which they are currently going.
With regard to the Vancouver Aquarium we have some mitigating factors. The Vancouver Park Board just passed a motion for staff to develop a bylaw to ban cetaceans in Stanley Park. We don't know what the disposition or situation will be for current rescued cetaceans that there now.
When it comes to new animals coming in or even the loaned animals that are currently at SeaWorld, it looks like those animals will not be allowed. There is a mitigating factor there.
As well, right after that announcement, the Vancouver Aquarium subsequently said, "We are getting out of the business anyway in 2029.'' Taking those things into consideration and the 1996 voluntary pledge by the aquarium not to acquire wild-caught animals, all evidence points to their getting out of business. If you are getting out of the business, I would suggest that a law of this type will have minimal impact on what you do. Of course, they will still have rescues to do and some of the things they want to do.
Senator Christmas: I did hear you correctly. You also mentioned there hasn't been a capture of a cetacean for 25 years.
Mr. Laidlaw: In 1992, the John G. Shedd Aquarium had contractors as well as their own staff go to Churchill, Manitoba, to the Churchill River estuary. They caught four belugas. Two of them died within the first month. I believe it was because of an inappropriate deworming medication. Then, John Crosbie, DFO minister at the time by ministerial decree said there would be no more captures allowed for export to aquaria for public display purposes.
It was a policy 25 years ago. Orcas were prior to that. It was in the 1970s. We haven't had captures for a long time.
Senator Christmas: That is what I thought you said, Mr. Laidlaw. I am trying to understand what the issue is.
Senator Watt: The person who was capturing them was John Hicks.
Mr. Laidlaw: Yes, whom I met. I actually liked him a lot.
Senator Christmas: It doesn't seem to be an issue.
Mr. Laidlaw: That is my belief. I think it is a lot of fuss about nothing because everything that is being suggested is already happening or is on the horizon in the not too distant future.
Senator Raine: I really didn't have a question but they are starting to arise now.
I want you to comment on an organization from California called Last Chance for Animals and their tactics in, I would say, attacking Marineland over the last few years. I wanted to know if you were affiliated in any way with that organization.
Ms. Rose: No, I'm not. My organization Animal Welfare Institute is not. That is all I have to say about that. We are not affiliated with them in any way.
Senator Raine: Could you comment on their tactics?
Ms. Rose: My organization is mostly a policy organization. We work to change law, change regulation and change corporate policy. We are not direct action. All of us are Ph.Ds, lawyers and DVMs, and we're all working to change policy.
Direct action of any kind that a lot of activists choose to take is not our MO; that is not our method. I really prefer not to comment on it. It's not something we do. I certainly do not support breaking the law. I do not support violence. That is my personal position. It is certainly my organization's position, but it is my personal position as well.
I don't know the details of what happened at Marineland. I happen to know that Mr. Holer has been violent. I have direct personal experience with that, but that doesn't excuse it in any activist who is working to end what is going on there.
Senator Raine: Who is Mr. Holer?
Ms. Rose: The owner of Marineland.
Mr. Laidlaw: I will comment on my organization. We are also more into investigative research, policy development and litigations in animal rescue over the last number of years. We have never been a protest or a direct-action organization.
I have heard of Last Chance for Animals. They have been on the scene for many years. Other than reading what is in the newspaper, I have never had any contact with them. I can't really provide any commentary on what they actually did. I know it was an undercover investigation that resulted in some type of litigation by Marineland. That is really the extent of my knowledge as to that particular situation.
Senator Raine: I would like to say I have been concerned for quite a few years about these direct-action groups.
My interest first came with seeing the attack on the seal industry and knowing how important the seal is to the welfare of the Inuit people. When the direct-action groups wound up attacking and cutting off the market for seal products, the harm done to the Inuit people was absolutely incalculable.
I don't appreciate those kinds of groups that raise money but spend very little of it on the actual welfare of the animals and a lot on the activist groups. I see that as a very non-positive way to create change, so I'm happy to hear that you are not affiliated.
Ms. Rose: I would also like to state for the record that this comes up a lot in these sorts of forums. Whereas in some ways I believe we are our brother's keeper, we can't keep answering for the actions of others. They are not our actions. I find it troubling that it always comes back to that instead of actually grappling with the issues at hand. I just wanted to make that comment. We are not those organizations.
Senator Raine: I appreciate that, but I think you would agree that public policy usually follows public opinion and those kinds of activist impacts on public opinion.
Ms. Rose: What I am saying is that we can't stop them. We can't manage their actions. We are not their keepers. We are not their parents. We are not their bosses. We can't control them. I'm not saying they don't need to be controlled; I'm just saying we can't do that.
Senator Plett: I have a couple of brief comments. Of course Mr. Holer will be here to defend himself against the accusation you just leveled against him, Ms. Rose, and I'm certainly looking forward to him doing that.
Ms. Rose: It's my personal experience, sir.
Senator Plett: I find it a little troubling that you would level an accusation against someone who is not here to defend himself.
Nevertheless, in reference to your comment about the killer whale at Marineland coming out of the water to put his head up to take fish rather than going down to catch it, I think we were told the other day that somebody wanted to put personhood on whales. I would tend to believe that this is what people do. They go to where the food is. If it's down low, they go down low; if it's up high, they go high. I go to the dinner table at six o'clock. I think everybody does the same. You go where the food is, including whales, whether it's down on the sea bottom or up where somebody is feeding them.
Let me get this clear: Animal Welfare Institute does not rescue animals.
Ms. Rose: We are a policy organization. We work to change policy, sir.
Senator Plett: Yes or no? Do you rescue animals?
Ms. Rose: Does that make a difference?
Senator Plett: Yes, it does. I am asking a question, ma'am. We are the ones asking the questions. I think we deserve answers. Do you rescue animals?
Ms. Rose: No, we do not. We do not own a shelter. We do not run a shelter.
Senator Plett: So you do not rescue animals.
Ms. Rose: That's not what we do, sir.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Mr. Laidlaw, you said this was a lot of ado about nothing here because Marineland will stay in business. Wouldn't that be a two-way street, then, if this is all about nothing? Why do we need this bill if it won't have any impact positively or negatively? Is there any reason for us needing this bill?
Mr. Laidlaw: Absolutely, because we are looking forward to the future and following the trend toward changing societal ethics.
Senator Plett: What about in the future 15 or 20 years from now when Marineland will go out of business because of this law?
Mr. Laidlaw: I think Marineland will change regardless. I think it's inevitable. It is a very large property five minutes from the falls. We have an elderly owner. I would fully expect that the whole dynamic will change when ownership of the property switches hands. My guess would be that we will no longer have a 1950s or 1960s style amusement park with whales on the property.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, but your saying that it has no impact because 15 or 20 years down the road Mr. Holer will die, nobody will take over the business and they'll sell the property to the city of Niagara Falls.
You have no proof that this would not have a negative impact on Mr. Holer's son if he wants to take over or anybody else wants to take over.
Mr. Laidlaw: If you're talking long-term impact, absolutely there could be long-term impact.
Senator Plett: Can you describe the work Zoocheck undertakes specifically related to the preservation of species, wildlife protection, public education and research and approximately what percentage of your focus on each of these categories represents?
Mr. Laidlaw: That's a very big question. We do a lot of different kinds of work. I would say that the majority of our work pertains to the keeping of wildlife in captivity. That would include everything from animals, zoos, aquariums and those types of more traditional animal display facilities, to animals used in the exotic pet trade. It would continue on to animals in circuses and novelty acts and other types of transient or mobile situations as well.
We do a lot of work in terms of wildlife management policies. Right now we are working on management issues with regard to wild horses in Alberta. We're working with the Manitoba government on establishing the first-ever bear rehabilitation centre in the province of Manitoba. That was a recent policy change. We are engaged in quite a few of those kinds of things.
We have also been active in funding field conservation work, so things that run along a continuum from sending scientists to important international meetings, to funding anti-poaching aerial patrols in the Lower Zambezi, to buying weapons and equipment for anti-poaching patrols in Kenya, and all different kinds of activities like that.
It changes over time, but there is a whole continuum of activities. Most of them do revolve around funding field conservation initiatives that actually protect wildlife, wildlife management policy change in Canada, and an assortment of issues pertaining to the keeping of wildlife in captivity.
Senator Plett: Thank you, sir.
Senator Enverga: Both of you mentioned that there is no value to watching cetaceans in the wild, and that they do not create awareness, fascination or any educational value for people. Is that what you said, Mr. Laidlaw?
Mr. Laidlaw: To clarify that, there is no substantive body of empirical evidence that in fact occurs as these facilities say. I'm happy to provide dozens and dozens of papers to the committee if that's what's required to show you this, but the evidence actually suggests that there isn't the learning occurring as facilities claim and there is no post-visit change in behaviour that benefits animals.
Senator Enverga: I would like to mention to you that we know a person by the name of Laurenne Schiller. She is currently completing her Ph.D in marine biology at university because at five years old she was inspired by a beluga whale named Qila to become a marine biologist.
As she was growing up she continued to visit Qila that played an integral role in developing her love for the ocean and her passion for marine biology. Now she wants to take care of the whole ecosystem and anything to do with cetaceans.
What would you say about that? Would you say that she didn't learn it from any of those experiences?
Ms. Rose: I am a marine mammal biologist. I work within the scientific community. I have a lot of friends who were inspired by a visit to the zoo, so your anecdote is extremely common but it is anecdote.
I would argue that your person and my friends, because they were raised by parents who gave them that self- awareness or awareness could have been inspired otherwise. I was inspired by watching a really good nature special. I could tell you the story; it is very boring.
It varies from person to person. I honestly believe that if we gave young people a different inspirational experience, which is what we are all talking about today, just as many young people would be inspired and animals would not have to suffer. That's all we're suggesting.
Senator Enverga: But you do agree that it inspires some people, a certain number of people, and creates awareness for a certain number of people, not just necessarily according to your stats, right?
Ms. Rose: All I'm saying is that yes, some people may be inspired by a visit to a zoo or an aquarium but animals are suffering at the same time. I would like to come up with ways to inspire young people where the cost-benefit is more in favour of the animals. That's all.
Senator Gold: On many issues, ideological and political, one expects to see great divergence of views. I'm sure one experiences that in many walks of life, and the same is true in science.
With regard to the issue of the impact of captivity on marine biological communities we know your position, Dr. Rose. Is there controversy within the scientific community vis-à-vis this issue or the related issue of the educational value if you choose to go further? To what degree is there a consensus or a large degree of consensus? Could you map the state of your colleagues' views on this for us, please?
Ms. Rose: Thank you for that fantastic question. Yes, there is controversy. My field is very young. The field of cetacean biology where we were actually studying the whole animal only started in the 1950s. It is a young field.
Prior to that, as you might remember from history, you caught a whale; you hauled it up on deck; and you cut it open. That's how you studied it. Studying them in situ, alive, was not done prior to the 1950s.
Some of the seminal scientists who founded this field studying the whole animal are still alive but a lot of them only died very recently. I knew many of them. One of them was one of my mentors. He co-founded SeaWorld. In the 1950s and 1960s, the scientific community felt that if you wanted to really get up close to a whole animal that was alive you had to put it in a tank, and that's what they did.
They did start studying them in captivity in those days. What they learned was that to really get at what this animal is you had to go out into the field. The very same man who co-founded SeaWorld pioneered fieldwork. He realized if you really wanted to know what a dolphin was, you had to go out into the field, and he pioneered the techniques for doing that. This is Dr. Kenneth Norris. He died in 1994; I started in 1985. I knew him for nine years.
It makes it very difficult for our scientific community to sort of disrespect our elders, and so it is extremely controversial. Even so, even though there is a history of respecting the giants in our field who studied these animals in concrete tanks back in the 1950s and 1960s, our community is coming around to consensus, as you put it, that yes, what you see in a tank is not actually an accurate avatar of a real whale or dolphin. If you really want to know what they are like you have to go into the field, hence the aggressive development of new technologies.
Earlier I mentioned remotely operated vehicles, drones and tags. The drive to develop that technology is because we are reluctantly — I say "reluctantly'' because we feel like we are disrespecting our elders — coming around to the agreement that the future of cetacean science is in the field.
I actually don't feel it's disrespecting them because they didn't know. Science is learning. Science is always growing. Science is always developing new knowledge. We are not static. If it was okay in 1950 that doesn't mean it's okay in 2017. If it was the only way to do it in 1950, I sure hope it's not the only way to do it in 2017. I hope we've developed new ways to do whatever it is.
In this case it is studying cetaceans. The future of cetacean science is in the wild and that's because when they are in a concrete tank they really aren't representative. They don't hear the same way. They don't behave the same way. They don't contract diseases the same way.
If we really want to understand why we are having die-offs of bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic coast, we will not learn it solely by studying them in concrete tanks. Those studies can help but they're not going to give us an accurate picture of what these animals are like when they are dealing with disease.
A growing number of well-respected scientists, current giants in the field, are coming around to the way of thinking that welfare is compromised in captivity and that there are better ways of studying these animals than putting them in captivity.
It does not mean that some good science is not being done in captivity. Some good science is still being done in captivity. Our goal in my community is to provide those opportunities in a more natural environment so that those animals represent more accurately what the animals are like in the wild.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I thank honourable senators and our witnesses for a lively and interesting debate. It certainly adds much to our study. We thank you for taking the time this evening. I apologize again for our late start.
We will see you on Thursday morning, senators. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)