Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 14 - Evidence - April 11, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 13, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), met this day at 8:40 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning everyone. My name is Fabian Manning, I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I chair the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Before I turn the floor over to our witness this morning, I would like to invite members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Boisvenu from Quebec.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario. I'm sitting in for Murray Sinclair from Manitoba.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from Quebec, specifically the Gulf region.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We may have others joining us later.
The committee is continuing its study into the examination of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins). I would ask the witness to introduce himself. I understand you have some opening remarks. After that we'll get questions from our senators. The floor is yours.
Basile van Havre, Director General, Domestic and International Biodiversity Policy, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning. My name is Basile van Havre, Director General, Domestic and International Biodiversity Policy, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada. I've been working in the Canadian Wildlife Service over the last 10 years and have 25 years in Environment Canada in various functions.
It's a pleasure to be here today on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada as part of your study of Bill S-203. I'll say a few words first on the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species and on the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, or WAPPRIITA.
As you know, the department business is diverse, protecting the environment, conserving the country's natural heritage, and providing weather and meteorological information to keep Canadians informed and safe.
With respect to conserving our national heritage, the department implements a range of programs. In addition to fulfilling a federal and national leadership role for biodiversity conservation, we act to conserve migratory birds and protect species at risk, manage a network of national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries, and work collaboratively with others through a number of stewardship and incentive programs to foster and support action by Canadians to conserve our nature.
With respect to the import and export of wildlife, including cetaceans, our work focuses on domestic implementation of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora known as CITES. It came into force in 1975 and has been adopted by over 180 parties, including Canada. It set control on trade and international movement of animal and plant species that have been or may become threatened with over- exploitation as a result of trade. The species afforded protection by CITES are identified by parties to the convention and are listed in one of three appendices to the convention according to the degree of protection they need.
Appendix 1 is a list of species threatened with extinction. Trade in this species is strictly regulated to ensure the survival and trade of commercial purpose is prohibited.
Appendix 2 lists species that are not currently threatened with extinction, but that may become so unless trade is strictly regulated to avoid over-exploitation. Also listed in the appendix are look-alike species regulated to provide additional protection to Appendix 2 species. Many species with healthy population within Canada, such as the black bear or the grey fox, are listed on Appendix 2 for this purpose.
In Appendix 3, individuals parties to the convention — many species are found within their border and are subject to regulation — is where the cooperation of other parties is needed in order to manage international trade in those species. For example, Canada has listed the walrus in that appendix.
Domestically, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, or WAPPRIITA, is a legislative vehicle for which Canada meets its international obligation under CITES. The purpose of WAPPRIITA is generally to regulate trade so it does not threaten the conservation of certain animals and plants, and to safeguard Canadian ecosystems from the introduction of harmful species.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for administering WAPPRIITA and has been designated as the management authority for CITES in Canada. As management authority, the department is responsible for verifying and validating the requests for international trade of CITES-listed animals and plants originating from or destined into Canada. This responsibility includes activities such as issuing CITES permits and certificates and reporting. The responsibility is shared with Fisheries and Oceans Canada for aquatic species, including Canadian cetacean species.
Both departments have also designated scientific authority. We are responsible for determining whether or not international trade of species is detrimental to the survival of the species. This responsibility includes monitoring the international trade of wildlife in Canada to ensure the current level of trade is sustainable.
Finally, the enforcement of WAPPRIITA is overseen by Environment and Climate Change Canada and is carried out in cooperation with other federal agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency, and with provincial and territorial agencies.
I am now moving on to protection of cetaceans under CITES and WAPPRIITA. CITES, and therefore WAPPRIITA, provide for certain restrictions on trade in cetaceans for conservation purposes. In fact, all cetaceans in the world, that is approximately 80 species, are listed under CITES as well as in schedule 1 of WAPPRIITA implementation regulation.
Cetacean species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled, are listed on Appendix 2 of the CITES. Should a cetacean be exported, the exporting country needs to affirm that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, that it was not obtained in contravention of the law of the country for the protection of fauna and flora, and if it is a living specimen, that the specimen will be prepared and shipped to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment.
The role of Environment and Climate Change Canada is to ensure that the appropriate documentation is provided. The department also inspects shipments to ensure that the provisions for shipping live animals have been met.
Cetacean species that are threatened with extinction are listed in Appendix 1. Trading specimen of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and subject to particularly strict controls. To import into Canada a species on Appendix 1, both an export permit and an import permit are required. The import permit will be issued only if it has been confirmed that the receiving institution is suitably equipped to house and care for live animal import, that the animal is not to be used for primarily commercial purpose, and that the purpose of the import is not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
Finally, I will note that the Species at Risk Act prohibits the trade in domestic cetacean species listed as threatened or endangered such as some beluga and killer whale populations.
Now I am moving on to the proposed amendment to WAPPRIITA in Bill S-203. Turning to clause 4 of Bill S-203, which would amend WAPPRIITA, my understanding of the proposed amendment is that it would create a new provision prohibiting import into Canada or export from Canada of all cetaceans, including whales, dolphins or porpoises, whether living or dead, as well as sperm, tissue culture or embryo of cetaceans. This would be a very broad prohibition. It would improve a complete ban on trade in cetacean involving Canada without providing a mechanism to exempt or authorize trade for a specific purpose such as scientific research and all the export of cetacean products by indigenous communities.
Further, the purpose of Bill S-203 is not consistent with the current purpose of WAPPRIITA or the departmental role in conservation.
The Honourable Wilfred Moore made it clear in his speech at second reading that keeping cetacea in captivity is not an environmental or conservation question, but rather a moral issue and a question of conscience. Ensuring the humane treatment of cetacea by ending their capacity is not a specific mandate of the department, and it is not addressed by the current purpose of WAPPRIITA. The purpose of the act is to protect Canadian and foreign species of animals and plants that may be at risk of overexploitation, because of unsustainable or illegal trade.
In conclusion, thank you again for inviting me to appear today. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Those are certainly some interesting comments.
Senator Gold: Good morning, and thank you for your testimony. You refer to the controls over the import into Canada of cetacea or species in appendix 1. You mentioned that you need to confirm that the receiving institution is suitably equipped. What standards do you apply to judge whether such institutions are in fact suitable for receiving a cetacean?
Mr. van Havre: The organization that does this for marine species is Fisheries and Oceans, but I can give you some comments, generally speaking, on what we do for certain species.
Senator Gold: Please do.
Mr. van Havre: We work closely with the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums to look at standards they use. We are certain that the species meet their standards. At times I've been conducting visits to various destinations.
Senator Gold: We heard from representatives of that organization who described the standards that they apply. Are you satisfied that those are the best standards to apply in these circumstances?
Mr. van Havre: We have been working closely with them, and we have been following closely the discussions of international association of zoos and aquariums on that. At the international level, this has been accepted as an appropriate standard by CITES.
Senator Gold: I want to make sure I understand your concluding remarks. When you say that the purpose of Bill S- 203 is not consistent with the current purpose of WAPPRIITA, or in French n'est pas compatible, are you saying that Bill S-203 goes against your mandate or is outside the mandate of the organization?
Mr. van Havre: Yes, I think you are correct. It's outside of the mandate for WAPPRIITA.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here this morning. We have heard from a number of experts on this issue, and something that makes me a bit uncomfortable is the fact that CAZA sets its own standards and is responsible for its own inspections. That proximity worries me.
It is worth pointing out that Bill S-203 targets cetaceans specifically. You said your department sometimes does site visits, but why is there no independent organization to enforce standards and ensure that captive cetaceans are kept in appropriate conditions, given their characteristics?
Mr. van Havre: Our determination thus far has been that international standards and their Canadian equivalents are adequate and meet the requirements we acquired under CITES.
To date, the department has not deemed it necessary or useful to establish a different policy governing the inspection and approval of sites housing these animals. I would just point out, if I may, that, in more than one instance, we were very involved, refusing to issue permits or delaying them because of problems associated with the sites housing the animals. I don't want to give the impression that we take a laissez-faire approach and are not at all active in the area.
Senator Forest: That isn't what I think, but the fact remains that CAZA inspects and accredits its own members.
Mr. van Havre: That is our understanding as well.
Senator Forest: Do you think that is normal?
Mr. van Havre: As long as we can make sure, under the current system, that we are in compliance with CITES requirements, it is our view that the system is an effective way of issuing permits.
Senator Forest: Are you saying the regime gives you the ability to assess that compliance because you visit facilities unannounced? Do you conduct site visits after CAZA inspectors have been there?
Mr. van Havre: We conduct inspections in situations where we have doubts about the information we are being given, and that is fairly rare.
Senator Forest: May I ask one last question, Mr. Chair?
[English]
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In your brief, you cite Senator Wilfred Moore, who said that keeping cetaceans in captivity was not an environmental or conservation question, but rather a moral issue and a question of conscience. The bill targets cetaceans, which have special biological traits, particularly acoustic sensitivity, and I would even say that it speaks to the very nature of the marine mammals in the species in this category. It is therefore clear that, because the bill is seen as dealing with a moral issue and a question of conscience, that is where the debate lies.
Given the captive environment in which cetaceans are kept — the type of pools, the reverberation of noise, and the ambient noise coming from the pumps and water quality maintenance systems — does your department not consider such conditions as causing excessive discomfort for cetaceans, unlike other animal species kept in captivity?
On that point, numerous experts have told us the opposite, but many have also said that such environments negatively impact the development of cetaceans, which can normally dive to very low depths and swim long distances in search of food. Of course, they are fed in captivity, but as the old saying goes, give a man fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Does your organization have a position on that?
Mr. van Havre: With respect to conservation and biology, in general, our focus is on the survival of populations. I will use another species within our responsibility as an example, migratory birds. We make sure that migratory bird populations remain at levels conducive to their long-term survival. The issue of well-being or survival of an individual becomes a concern when its population drops to a very, very low level.
With species like cetaceans, which are plentiful in the wild, the survival and well-being of an individual in captivity is a societal or moral issue, which is different from the conservation issue that is our focus, professionally speaking, of course.
Senator Forest: I will use the example of the overpopulation of grey seals and harbour seals. Does your department respond to the situation at all, by expanding the hunt and raising quotas? Does the situation seriously impact cod or salmon stocks? Have you introduced measures to bring the seal population under control? That is a far cry from the cetacean reality.
Mr. van Havre: As far as seal populations are concerned, I would have to refer you to my colleagues at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because they are the ones responsible for that. But, if I may, I'd like to come back to migratory birds, which fall under our mandate. In response to the overpopulation of Arctic geese, we have extended hunting seasons and are making efforts to ensure that the species does not push out other species.
[English]
Senator Enverga: Thank you for being here today.
First, I would like to thank you for a job well done. Taking care of our wild animals and preventing any animals from extinction is an honourable job.
My question is about the way you have the policies and regulations. With wild animals, after a number of breedings in an aquarium, is there a time when you consider the wild animal is more domesticated?
Mr. van Havre: Thank you. That question is the subject of intense debate not only nationally but internationally.
An individual is never considered domestic when a species is from the wild and it is captive bred, which is what you are referring to. It is still controlled by CITES.
Not for cetaceans but for birds that are treated as pets, there are certain provisions permitting those captive-bred animals to be traded, but there is a need to trace the origin of the animal back to the wild stock to ensure that the wild stock was taken legally. There is a vast body of legal work against trade of birds from illegally taken stock. That is closely tracked at the international level.
Senator Enverga: It has never been done on cetaceans, just birds? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. van Havre: I will have to go back to our files, but I can't recall in the case of cetaceans questioning the origin of captive-bred cetaceans.
Senator Enverga: If it is more domesticated, although it is not established, would there be an exemption for that rule at this point? Is it part of your study in the future?
Mr. van Havre: The notion of domesticated does not exist under CITES. If a species is coming from the wild, bred in captivity, that generation two, three or five will still need permitting, just as generation one. We will need to clearly establish the origin of that specimen.
Senator Enverga: You talked in your proposed amendment about protecting our Aboriginal communities from being able to sell some goods that are composed of different types of wildlife or maybe cetaceans. Does your department know how widespread this is?
Mr. van Havre: In my notes I have some statistics. I can provide that to the committee in detail.
From memory, over the last few years, we issued about 30 permits for export of narwhal tusks, which would be the main one. The rest is minimal.
Senator Enverga: I want to know how much that will affect our friends from the North.
Mr. van Havre: The value of the export is something to look at carefully. I worked for many years on the conservation of polar bears. The export of wildlife products is often the only cash income for communities with minimal alternate opportunities. What looks to us like a small amount of money is often the only means they have to get things from the South. We can provide you with the list of permits.
Senator Enverga: Was there ever a request from the North to say, "I want to sell this wildlife product''? Have there been any incidents like that?
Mr. van Havre: No. Generally speaking, it has been my experience that people from the North have a limited appreciation for zoos and aquariums. They respect species in the wild. I have often found myself facing signs from the community saying that they oppose animals in captivity.
Senator Enverga: What about when it is about business?
Mr. van Havre: I have no recollection of such transactions. I will go back and provide you with the stats, but I have no recollection of such transactions.
Senator Enverga: However, there is no way to stop them from doing so because it is their right to get some value for their land, right? Is there anything in law that would require our Northern friends to not do this, even though it would help them for their sustenance?
Mr. van Havre: You may want to talk to legal experts on where the Aboriginal indigenous rights stop in terms of international exports versus domestic trade. This is a complex area. In my 10 years working on the international trade of endangered species, we have worked very closely with the indigenous population, and most of the time we have the same opinion.
Senator Watt: My friend raised the issue of a certain product of a certain species that normally goes out in the market. We know that.
Have you looked into the possibility of identifying how much money is being generated with those by-products and determining, to the extent you can, when you have to make a final decision at the end of the day, what should go on what is considered to be the endangered species list? Have you done any evaluation on what the Arctic is bringing in by way of revenue to Canada in terms of the by-product?
Mr. van Havre: To make sure I understood your question I will put it in my words. You are looking at whether there has been any evaluation of the revenues from the international sales and how much is going back to the actual community?
Senator Watt: Exactly.
Mr. van Havre: That is what we commonly in our jargon call the value chain or economic valuation. That has been done for several Arctic species, but I am not aware that it has been done on Arctic-species-traded cetaceans. You should talk to Fisheries and Oceans; they may have that information.
What I can offer as a comment — I know generally how the system works in the North — is the territorial governments act as the sales agent for Inuit hunters and fishers.
Senator Watt: That is only in certain parts geographically in the N.W.T. but not on the eastern side.
Mr. van Havre: N.W.T. and Nunavut is the same situation, and in Quebec and Nunavik a similar system is being set up with the intervention of the Makkovik society.
Senator Watt: Who would have the responsibility to gather that information?
Mr. van Havre: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Senator Watt: Fisheries and Oceans? Do you know which section of Fisheries and Oceans? Can you help me in navigating that area? Can you get back to me and perhaps get back to the committee also on this issue?
Mr. van Havre: We will.
Senator Watt: I think this information is important for us to have.
The Chair: We can make inquiries on your behalf also.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: If I understand your comments correctly, sir, you are saying that the current Bill S-203 as drafted would result in the complete ban of cetaceans, and you mentioned specifically the export of cetacean products by indigenous communities. I appreciate your willingness to provide information about the number of exports and the value of exports.
I recall that when the Species at Risk Act was first implemented by the federal government, the Crown executed its duty to consult, and I remember the extensive consultations.
If Bill S-203 remains as it is and it implements a complete ban on the trade of cetaceans, including products that are traded by indigenous communities, I would assume that would trigger another round of consultations and that the Crown would have to exercise its duty to consult, because it is infringing upon an indigenous right to trade products.
Can you comment on whether or not, as drafted, Bill S-203 would trigger a consultation process with indigenous communities by the Crown?
Mr. van Havre: Generally speaking, we not only trigger consultation on strict requirements, but on any change that would affect indigenous communities, whether or not it is a right.
I am pretty certain there would be an extensive need for consultation on this one. This would be a significant change from current practice.
Senator Christmas: If memory serves me correctly, and please correct me if I am mistaken, I think that consultation has to take place prior to the legislation taking effect.
Mr. van Havre: That is my understanding, too.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. van Havre. I have two fairly straightforward questions for you. First, do CITES permits apply to the import and export of all wildlife, including fur-bearing animals such as bears and wolves? CITES permits apply to all wildlife, do they not?
Mr. van Havre: The permits apply only to those species listed in the CITES appendices. For example, if you are travelling with your pet dog to the United States, you do not need a CITES permit, but you do need other permits.
Senator Boisvenu: Let's say I am a trapper wanting to export fur to France. Do I need a CITES permit?
Mr. van Havre: Mainly in the case of species listed in CITES and in the case of many other fur-bearing animals. I should point out that some exemptions do exist. The United States and Canada have a practice whereby an American or Quebec hunter does not require a permit to return home with animal remains.
Senator Boisvenu: Your organization is a regulator, is it not?
Mr. van Havre: Absolutely. A large number of CITES activities are based on regulating the trade of certain species.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Moore indicated that the bill has more to do with taking a moral stance than it does with protecting the species. Do you think Bill S-203 is unreasonable given your understanding of cetacean-related issues?
Mr. van Havre: The bill is based on reasoning that differs from that underlying the current legislation. We have adequate knowledge to make determinations regarding conservation of the species.
Senator Boisvenu: Do you think it is unreasonable to prohibit all forms of exploitation or captivity of these animals for scientific or other purposes?
Mr. van Havre: From a conservation standpoint, yes, it is unreasonable.
[English]
Senator Watt: Thank you, again. I have two questions that I would like to put forward. One is more along the lines of your area of responsibility, namely, environment and climate change.
Again, I am asking you whether the department has moved into an area of setting up a monitoring system with regard to certain species migrating between the South and the North. Is that clear to you?
Mr. van Havre: Are you asking me whether we are setting up a monitoring system for species migrating?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. van Havre: Yes, we do. Environment and Climate Change Canada has responsibility for migratory birds, and there is an extensive system in place, with colleagues from the U.S. and Mexico, to monitor the population of those species.
Senator Watt: So there is a working relationship between Canada and the American side, including Mexico, with regard to migratory birds. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. van Havre: Absolutely. We could not do this work without them.
Senator Watt: Is there any possibility, at some point, that you could provide us, if it is not already in place as a program, the intent, if you have an intent, in terms of improving being able to follow not only what is happening to the Canada Goose and the Snow Goose? Those are the migratory birds.
Is there a way of more carefully monitoring exactly what is happening to them? There is a lot of pollution landing in the Arctic Ocean and it is also starting to affect the natural habitats in an area that is heavily relied upon by the migratory birds. Is there something coming from our government that will put us in the position to monitor or follow what is happening to each individual species that migrates to the north?
Basically, that is a nutshell question that I would like to have answered as information. That is, if there is something in writing, I would like to have it.
Mr. van Havre: Certainly. There is a report prepared every year, in preparation for changing hunting regulations, that establishes the status of migratory bird populations. That is publicly available and we can easily provide you with that.
In addition, there are a number of internal and technical documents specifically about the issue of the impact of overabundant geese on the landscape in the North. We will need a bit more time to gather those, but we can provide you with that.
Senator Watt: Thank you. I am not sure whether I was hearing you properly when you were being asked, with regard to Bill S-203, whether it conflicts with the existing law already in place as legislation. If I understood correctly, I think they were saying it is different, but it is sort of on the side. What does that mean?
Mr. van Havre: The objective and rationale for the CITES and for the WAPPRIITA, which is our implementation, is around conservation of species. The objective is to make sure that those species are present for the future.
My understanding of the objective of Bill S-203 is to address some animal welfare issues. In our mind, that is separate from the conservation.
Senator Watt: Is there anything in this bill that you could tell us you are not happy with? What is your specific recommendation to avoid if there are conflicts? I think we need to know that information. If there are none, then I don't see any reason why we can't move ahead, then I want to try to move this piece of legislation forward.
From what I have heard from the witnesses and from the little input that I have put into this particular issue, no one seems to have any real problem with this piece of legislation. We are spending too much time on it, let us put it that way. That is how I look at it. We need to move on.
Mr. van Havre: Our understanding of the kind of ban that is proposed is it will impose new restrictions on trade. That is something outside of the scope of the current law. It is not for me to say whether one purpose is more important than the other. That is not my job. My job is to administer the act.
Senator Watt: But you do have an opinion?
Mr. van Havre: No. I'm here to present the facts to you about the way the system is working.
Senator Watt: I understand you perfectly but you must have an opinion. You work for the department and you said this doesn't fit categorically into what you are used to administering. You must have an opinion.
Mr. van Havre: What I can tell you is the proposed legislation is not in line with the current way WAPPRIITA is written.
Senator Watt: Okay. I don't think I will get it out of you so I will let it go.
The Chair: Good try, Senator Watt. We do have differences of opinions on some things, some senators.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for your testimony. Being a neophyte to this area if I ask you questions and I should be looking to another place, please tell me.
In terms of your monitoring function, I'm interested what your relationship is and how you develop restrictions, requirements and standards of CAZA and how you monitor international conditions. In your comments you said your objective is not to eliminate but to minimize the risk to injury and damage to health or cruel treatment. Clearly, there would be some issue around what happens once the cetaceans are out of the range of Canada's jurisdiction. What mechanisms are put in place?
Then I have a supplementary, if that is all right.
Mr. van Havre: Once again, I will speak about our experience not on cetacean species — that is Fisheries and Oceans — but I will talk about other species where similar situations have arisen in the past.
Recently, there were a couple of cases where there was a need to export from Canada live elephants from zoos to facilities where they could spend time outside of public attention. Those places exist in the U.S. There is a disease that is prevalent in a number of those species in those places in the U.S. We were aware of that and we were aware of the proposed destination of the specimens in question so we contacted our counterpart in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with which we have a good relationship. We asked them to confirm that the place they were going was free of the disease. There was a condition on us issuing the export permit.
Normally there is a strong network of relationships between the management authorities of CITES across the world, I would say. The secretariat of the CITES also plays a role in helping countries talk to each other. Collectively, we have an interest in ensuring that we uphold the CITES conditions because that enables trade and prohibits unlawful trade. That has been helpful to us working at the international level.
We have not done international inspections but that is not something that would be prohibited by any law or regulation. Definitely, on occasion where we have the opportunity to visit foreign countries, we take time to visit with counterparts to see how they work.
Senator Pate: Have you ever visited Marineland in the middle of July, when there are thousands of kids banging the water around the cetaceans?
Mr. van Havre: I have not.
Senator Pate: It might be an idea to suggest that that be part of the monitoring function.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: We have heard mixed views on the importance of research on cetaceans in captivity. In your opinion, how common and significant is research on captive species, as far as cetacean conservation is concerned? I do not mean research on species in the wild.
Mr. van Havre: Not being an expert on cetaceans, I will keep my remarks general. Scientific institutions, aquariums and zoos play a critical role in animal research in general, because they make it possible to conduct research that could not otherwise be conducted on animals in the wild. For example, blood testing and blood research on mammals in captivity throughout their life cycle could not be conducted in the wild; large institutions such as the San Diego and Vancouver zoos carry out that kind of research. They have a very specific role to play. There are numerous activities that cannot be conducted in wild marine habitats, but that are possible in captivity thanks to these institutions, so they play a very important role. They are instrumental, not just from a research standpoint, but also from a rehabilitation one.
Senator Gold: In your experience, is the research conducted by aquariums usually published in scientific journals? Am I to understand that it plays an important role in conservation efforts?
Mr. van Havre: Absolutely. It would be interesting to do a literature review, to compare the number of publications by institutions in connection with aquariums and zoos with published research on species in the wild. I will say that the research results are paramount to conservation efforts.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
Senator Forest: Earlier, you said you did not have an opinion, but you told Senator Boisvenu that the bill was unreasonable. In what way is Bill S-203 unreasonable?
Mr. van Havre: In terms of conservation results. A broad ban on trade would be unreasonable given species conservation goals and results.
Senator Forest: You are not concerned with the conditions of captivity of cetaceans but, rather, with their trade.
Mr. van Havre: Precisely. The role of CITES is not to ensure the well-being of individuals, but, instead, overall population control to ensure long-term survival. Considerations of financial or commercial gain do not enter into the equation.
Senator Forest: Your department is responsible for identifying threatened species and taking appropriate measures, particularly in the wild, and I think you do that very well. Is there not, however, a fundamental problem with the fact that your department does not concern itself with the specific issue of captivity? You are telling me that the conditions in which these animals are kept and live in captivity are not your concern, that they fit into a different context. As the senator mentioned, is there not a missing link when it comes to society's responsibility for these types of animals?
Mr. van Havre: We focus on individuals in the wild to ensure long-term population survival. Once they are in captivity, the issues are different. It is not my job or role to address that aspect. It falls outside our mandate.
Senator Forest: That much is clear. However, I am not comfortable with the fact that CAZA is the body in charge of determining what the proper conditions for captivity are. As I see it, a layer of accountability needs to be added. Consider this: if I step outside my house and I see someone who is ill on the sidewalk, I have a duty to call an ambulance. Doesn't this approach fall short from a moral responsibility standpoint? Yes, on a general level, we concern ourselves with populations, we make sure captive animals are kept in appropriate conditions, but we do not concern ourselves with the well-being of those animals in captivity.
Mr. van Havre: I am certain you heard from Justice officials, who spoke to the committee about the Criminal Code. Normally, when issues arise involving animal welfare, we look to our colleagues at Justice, who deal with that legislation. They are the ones who take measures.
Senator Forest: That is the challenge of an organization that operates in silos; any crossover in terms of communications tends to be more complicated.
Mr. van Havre: If you are asking me what our relationship with them is like, I will tell you that we work quite well together. I've never had a problem in that regard.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest.
Senator Christmas: Thank you. As you know, sir, Bill S-203 covers all cetaceans including whales, porpoises and dolphins. Could you tell me how those species are listed under CITES? Are they listed in appendix 1, 2 or 3?
Mr. van Havre: I can provide you with the list of species and in which appendix in detail. I have that here on my screen.
All species are listed in appendix 2 of cetaceans. There is a number of specific species that are listed in appendix 1. I would say there is probably about a dozen in appendix 1.
Senator Christmas: In appendix 1, are those threatened with extinction? Appendix 2, are those the ones that may be a threat if not regulated?
Mr. van Havre: Yes.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
Mr. van Havre: If I could add one technical detail. There are a number of species listed in appendix 2 for which we have zero quota harvest from the wild. Instead of putting them in appendix 1, which is a very strong measure and hard to change, there is a middle step where we could say, "You are in appendix 2, but we're not going to issue any permit from the wild.''
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to come back to my earlier comment about the bill being unreasonable. In your line of work, acquiring scientific expertise is essential, is it not?
Mr. van Havre: Absolutely.
Senator Boisvenu: Do you think that ending the captivity of these species poses a threat to our scientific understanding going forward?
Mr. van Havre: The scientific knowledge gained thanks to captive animals is part of —
Senator Boisvenu: That is extrapolated to natural environments?
Mr. van Havre: Exactly. Although it would not mean the end of new knowledge, because we would continue to have sources of research involving species in the wild, we would lose an essential research tool.
Senator Boisvenu: Using the rule of three, I could say that this bill's passage would have a negative impact on Canadian scientists who dedicate their lives to building expertise in this area. Could I not?
Mr. van Havre: My understanding is that yes, it would have an impact.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Picking up on the questions of Senators Boisvenu and Gold, could you provide with us with more detail, either now or later in writing, on what types of research could not be done in the wild that require captivity and why? Whether it could be the isolation tanks and display tanks that are used now, or whether there are other ways of using larger netted areas and that thing. Do you have details of what kind of research requires captivity and cannot be done in the wild?
Mr. van Havre: That's partly a question that is better directed to my colleagues from Fisheries and Oceans overseeing that research. We can work with them and provide with you that answer.
Senator Pate: I may have misunderstood. You provided a fairly definitive answer. There was research that couldn't be done?
Mr. van Havre: Yes, in general. Which one, that is for Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am trying to understand this. You just said that, according to the rule of three — a formula that can be dangerous — this bill would lead to a loss of scientific research involving cetaceans in captivity, and a loss of scientific research overall.
What is your basis for that comment, and how are you able to determine that research on cetaceans in captivity can reflect the reality of cetaceans living naturally in the wild? That would be akin to using research conducted on prisoners as the basis for my scientific research. After studying their behaviour in relation to their situation, I could conclude, using the rule of three, that their reality was the same as that of the general public.
On what basis can you say that the bill would obviously lead to a loss of scientific research?
Mr. van Havre: It is important to understand that various types of animal research are done. Generally speaking, research conducted on captive animals is different from research involving animals in the wild. We do not do any behavioural research on animals in captivity. Most of the research focuses on veterinary science, involving elements such as hematology and hormones. It is an area of research that is complementary, but differs from the research conducted on non-captive animals.
Senator Forest: We are very aware. I come from a region with the highest concentration of marine scientists, particularly with respect to belugas. It has been clearly shown that the environment in which an individual is kept can significantly affect their hormonal and biophysical development. Whether the animal lives in an estuary, a gulf or a pool can have a biological impact on that individual. I am not saying that the research has no relevance, but to draw conclusions as easily as you did cuts the discussion much too short, in my view.
Mr. van Havre: I would like to clarify, if I may. What I was trying to say was that it would have an impact. The nature of that impact — and that is what the senator asked earlier — needs to be evaluated. It is clear, however, that this research is helpful to us, in my view.
Senator Forest: You did not give a measured response. You said that it would have an impact, that it would result in a loss. As I see it, the matter should be evaluated with all the scientific rigour it is due.
[English]
The Chair: I see that there are no more questions. I would like to take the opportunity to thank our witness for contributing to our discussion on Bill S-203.
For your benefit, some of the first witnesses we had were officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but due to the fact that a lot of questions were raised over the past few meetings — and I have consulted with the clerk — we will look at having some of those officials return from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to clarify questions and comments and discussions that we have had over the past month, such as those Senator Pate raised this morning and as others have done, too.
With that, I would like to thank our witness. We are going to clear the decks for a couple of minutes.
I'm going to ask if it is agreed that the committee proceed in camera to consider a draft agenda.
(The committee continued in camera.)