THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 11, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:45 a.m. [ET] to continue its consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Mobina Jaffer, I am from British Columbia and I’m the chair of the committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves now.
Senator Plett: Good morning. My name is Senator Don Plett, from Manitoba.
Senator Prosper: Good morning. Senator P. J. Prosper from Nova Scotia, land of the Mi’kmaq.
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. I am Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Simons: I’m Paula Simons, a senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, from Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, Serge Lussier, Commissioner of Accreditation; and Dean Treichel, Accreditation Manager; from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Daniel Ashe, President and Chief Executive Officer, by video conference; and from African Lion Safari, Trish Gerth, General Manager; Charlie Gray, Superintendent of Elephants; and Dr. Amy Chabot, Research and Conservation.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us and giving your time to us. We are looking forward to hearing from you. You come very highly recommended from our opposition leader, Senator Plett. Welcome.
[Translation]
Serge Lussier, Commissioner of Accreditation, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums: Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Serge Lussier, and I am the Commissioner of Accreditation at Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA. I am also an executive adviser at Parc Oméga in Montebello, Quebec. I have over 40 years of experience performing fieldwork, including the protection and preservation of wildlife. Currently, part of my work involves collaborating with a foundation that invests in worldwide in-situ conservation as well as the protection of wildlife habitats and endangered species.
[English]
I’m joined by Mr. Dean Treichel, CAZA Accreditation Manager from our national office, who also sits on CAZA’s accreditation commission. Dean has 42 years of experience in this field, including working as general manager of the Edmonton Valley Zoo.
Since being formed in 1976, CAZA has worked to develop accreditation standards that have since become recognized as among the best in the world. In fact, just recently, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums recognized CAZA with the WAZA 2023 Animal Welfare Goal. Today, various governments at all levels have incorporated CAZA’s standards into their regulatory framework.
CAZA is and always has been at the forefront of animal welfare. It is vital to us. Our accreditation commission is comprised of exceptional animal welfare experts who have been in the zoological world for many years. It includes a member of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association as well as a behavioural scientist.
CAZA institutional members help more than 12 million visitors each year to connect to and care about nature. Our members participate actively in hundreds of applied conservation programs and are behind some of the most remarkable conservation success stories.
Long and short, we are dedicated to animal welfare. We have the practical experience to assist the government. However, Bill S-15 in its current form does not align with that shared goal. Here are CAZA’s concerns about the bill.
First, the preamble to Bill S-15 from the outset makes claims that are debatable. There is considerable scientific literature to support opposing views. The claims relating to public opinion in the preamble are unsubstantiated. CAZA requests removing the current preamble.
Second, the statement that elephants and great apes in captivity represent cruelty is not supported by sound science or credible evidence. CAZA requests the removal of any reference to animal cruelty.
Third, making it a criminal offence to possess or breed a great ape or elephant is not in itself a reason founded upon animal welfare and is not serving a valid public interest. CAZA requests removing the ban approach on the great apes and elephants.
Fourth, in Canada, there really is no pressing need to change current regulations related to elephants and great apes. As endangered species, elephants and great apes are already federally regulated by ECCC. CAZA recommends using current regulations as enforced by ECCC through WAPPRIITA and CITES.
Fifth, throughout Bill S-15, there are examples of exceptions for holding animals. CAZA believes these exceptions are reasonable and are very much in line with CAZA’s accreditation program.
Sixth, CAZA takes issue with the management and enforcement of such exemptions, as the bill is unclear. CAZA believes that this section of the bill is a risk for our important conservation work.
Seventh, CAZA requests that accredited zoos and aquariums in Canada are consulted over the proposed exemptions. CAZA is advocating for its standards to be recognized and used as best practices for wildlife in human care in Canada. In this scenario, accredited members of CAZA should be recognized as animal welfare organizations and be exempted from the limitations of Bill S-15.
Senators, we want to be part of the solution, working hand in hand, helping our Canadian government, as we have been doing with various provincial governments, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We stand by our rigorous standards and know that we are the gold standard for animal welfare.
[Translation]
Mr. Lussier: Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to appear before you today.
[English]
The Chair: I want to clarify something: CAZA was not consulted?
Mr. Lussier: No.
The Chair: Thank you.
Daniel Ashe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Good morning, distinguished committee members. Thank you for the honour of this opportunity to testify.
I am Dan Ashe, President and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a lifelong conservationist. Prior to joining AZA in 2017, I had a long career in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, including nearly six years as the agency’s U.S. Senate-confirmed director.
AZA is an accrediting body, and accreditation is a condition of membership. Our standards are the world’s most comprehensive and rigorous, spanning animal care and well-being, animal acquisition, conservation, research, education, safety, guest service, governance, finance and more. Our accreditation process is governed by an independent accreditation commission, and inspections are conducted by a network of over 200 expert inspectors, all reasons why AZA accreditation is the global gold standard for modern, progressive zoological facilities.
We are a U.S.-based global membership organization of 251 accredited facilities in 13 nations as far away as Hong Kong, and seven in Canada. Our accreditation standards are interpreted in four languages: English, French, Spanish and Arabic. Our annual conference is the world’s largest gathering of zoological professionals. Our 2023 conference attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 22 nations. We’re looking forward to our 2024 conference in Calgary.
Our Pathway Toward Membership Program encourages and assists aspiring facilities in preparing for the rigours of AZA accreditation. Currently, 37 facilities are enrolled, including 10 in Canada, 2 in Mexico and 1 in the United Arab Emirates.
We applaud and share your concern for animal well-being. We encourage legislation imposing high performance-based standards on zoological facilities. We support the intent of Bill S-15.
We disagree that the human care of elephants and great apes is inherently cruel. Jane Goodall herself recognizes that great apes, in well-designed facilities, under compassionate professional care and living in functional social groups, can live better lives than their counterparts in nature. The same is true for elephants.
The vital ingredient is commitment to the highest standards and practices and to continual improvement. Absent these commitments, no facility should be caring for elephants, great apes or any animals with complex physical, social and emotional needs.
This commitment must extend to conserving species in nature. Collectively, AZA’s accredited members stand among the largest global supporters of wildlife conservation, providing nearly $250 million U.S. every year in direct support for field conservation and advocacy. Through our Saving Animals from Extinction program, our members are cooperating with hundreds of partner organizations to support government-endorsed conservation strategies for 41 species programs, covering hundreds of species at risk of extinction, including Canadian species like North American songbirds, sharks and rays, whooping crane and monarch butterfly.
Our members are supporting groundbreaking research in animal health, behaviour and conservation, including vaccine development for elephant herpes virus, studying the ecology and biology of the highly endangered Cross River gorilla, diets and diseases in orangutans and providing scientists with access to animals that are extremely difficult to study in nature, like polar bears.
Finally, as conservationists, we face twin challenges of an extinction crisis and a human population that is increasingly disconnected from nature. Therefore, aquariums and zoos are increasingly relevant to conservation, as places where many people will experience and connect with nature. Through professionally designed conservation education, AZA members reach 350 million people annually, where they see and learn empathy for animals, where they better understand the challenges of nature conservation and where they discover how they can act to drive change. All of these attributes were recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in a recent and powerful statement on the vital conservation roles of zoos and aquariums.
AZA’s global network of members is prepared to join you in setting and surpassing the highest of standards and further innovation and accomplishment for elephants, great apes and wildlife and wild places everywhere. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ashe.
Trish Gerth, General Manager, African Lion Safari: Good afternoon.
I’m joined by Dr. Amy Chabot, Research and Conservation Program Coordinator at African Lion Safari. Dr. Chabot has a Master’s of Science from McGill University, a doctorate from Queen’s University and is an adjunct associate professor in the Biology Department at Queen’s. Her role focuses on integrating ex situ and in situ population management to achieve the IUCN’s One Plan Approach to conservation. She is an advisor to the Eastern Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Team, coordinates the international Loggerhead Shrike Working Group and chairs CAZA’s conservation committee. She co-founded the Canadian Species Initiative, which is the IUCN’s Conservation Planning Specialist Committee’s Canadian regional resource centre. Dr. Chabot’s strengths lie in developing innovative ways to assist in the conservation of species at risk using genomics, thermography and other scientific tools to promote animal health and welfare.
I am also joined by Charlie Gray, Superintendent of African Lion Safari. He has dedicated over 40 years of his life to elephant management, welfare and conservation. Since 1985, Charlie has managed and cared for a large multi-generational herd of Asian elephants that have successfully reproduced to the third generation. He is a founding board member of the Elephant Managers Association and the International Elephant Foundation. He is a member of CAZA as well as AZA, an advisor for the AZA SAFE elephant program and has served on the AZA Taxon Advisory Groups for over 30 years as vice chair and vice coordinator. He is a member of the EEHV Advisory Group as well as a conservation partner of the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group.
Charlie leverages his extensive expertise in elephant management and care to assist numerous international studies and conservation projects as an advisor, supporter and active participant. For example, pre-COVID, African Lion Safari hosted elephant care specialists from Indonesia to provide training and support from our elephant management program. This type of knowledge exchange and capacity building is crucial for the welfare and conservation of elephants worldwide.
As a stakeholder that is significantly impacted by the outcome of Bill S-15, I would like to highlight some of the key issues and concerns.
Bill S-15 would fundamentally inhibit African Lion Safari’s research and conservation work for the Asian elephant. The intent of this bill is to end the breeding of certain legislated species. This would essentially phase out elephants in Canada.
African Lion Safari has a viable population and a proven track record for having one of the most successful conservation programs for Asian elephants in North America. Our mission and conservation goal is not just to have a collection of elephants here at African Lion Safari but ultimately to contribute to and increase the ex situ population in North America and Europe, as well as support in situ conservation efforts. The sustainability of our population requires active international partners. African Lion Safari recommends removing the ban approach and deleting any reference that it is a criminal offence to possess or breed an elephant or great ape.
African Lion Safari is very concerned about the management and enforcement of the potential exceptions that are listed in the bill. They create a tremendous amount of uncertainty given that permits would be arbitrarily granted by the minister and the department.
African Lion Safari does not believe that there needs to be a change to the current regulations. As an endangered species, elephants and great apes are already federally regulated by ECCC through WAPPRIITA and CITES and are housed at accredited institutions that uphold the highest standards and practices of animal care with respect to animal welfare, conservation, scientific research and public education. African Lion Safari recommends using the current regulations that are enforced by ECCC.
There is no science-based evidence that has established that certain animals, particularly elephants and great apes, should not be in captivity. This part of the preamble should be removed. African Lion Safari recommends that any reference to animal cruelty be deleted.
In 1987, African Lion Safari first wrote the government seeking the development of effective animal welfare legislation. Today, we are still committed to working with government to develop legislation that protects animals in need. At African Lion Safari, we are unwavering in our resolution to continue our conservation mission to provide the highest standard of care for our elephants and to ensure that this endangered species survives for future generations.
In closing, I would like to formally request that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs visit African Lion Safari as part of your study on Bill S-15. I think you would find it to be an invaluable experience in your consideration of this bill.
I’m happy to take your questions.
The Chair: We will go on to questions, starting with the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Klyne: For the record, for the Jane Goodall Act, Bill S-241, as well as this bill, my office and I have met with, spoken to and consulted with CAZA about these bills many times. Some representatives we spoke to include Jim Facette, Kim Maisonneuve, Paul Goulet, Clint Wright, Serge Lussier and the board.
I have two questions. The first is for representatives of CAZA. I want to thank you all for being here, and thank you for your opening remarks. The attitudes of many Canadians are evolving around captive wildlife. Based upon the best available science, do you see any need to improve animal welfare at Canadian zoos generally and in relation to elephants specifically?
Mr. Lussier: In Canada, 85% of the institutions are not accredited. Only 15% of institutions — zoos, aquariums and parks — are accredited, either by CAZA or AZA. We feel that what we call unaccredited or even roadside zoos need to be looked at and regulated. Exotic animals in the hands of private people or menageries needs to be looked at. For years, CAZA has been working with provinces, sometimes with success, to bring our standards to their regulations so that CAZA accreditation would be a must to receive —
Senator Klyne: The question was whether you see the need to improve animal welfare at zoos generally and with elephants specifically. That’s the question.
Mr. Lussier: Yes. Very well. There are zoos that are accredited and some that are not. This is what I mean. For the ones that are not, yes, there would be a need. If we had been at the table with you from the beginning, Senator Klyne, we would have suggested that route.
Senator Klyne: [Technical difficulty] members, so thank you.
I have another question for CAZA representatives. In the Forty-second Parliament, CAZA stood with Marineland in opposing Canada’s whale and dolphin captivity phase-out. Since 2019, 17 whales and dolphins have died at Marineland. Have your organization’s views on legal protection for captive wildlife, including whales and dolphins, evolved since opposing that legislation, and what is CAZA’s current position on whale and dolphin captivity?
Mr. Lussier: Senator, thank you for the question.
Marineland is not an accredited CAZA institution. It has not been for many years.
I would like to mention that the accreditation commission, like the field, has an evolution, and standards are getting more and more rigorous over time. Some institutions that used to be accredited are not anymore, for different reasons. I cannot go further on which ones and why —
Senator Klyne: But where do you stand on whales and dolphins, which has evolved since time has passed? What is your current position on whale and dolphin captivity?
Mr. Lussier: There’s a law. They’re banned from Canada at this time. We follow the law.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
I have a question for AZA. In a written brief with animal welfare NGOs, four Canadian AZA-accredited zoos have supported Bill S-15, those being the Toronto, Calgary, Granby and Assiniboine Park zoos. They’ve also asked that the Senate amend the bill to include exotic big cats right away and to allow the federal cabinet to protect additional wild species by executive order. In expressing those views, those four Canadian AZA-accredited zoos have taken a world-leading position on wild animal welfare at zoos. Would you like to comment, please?
Mr. Ashe: Yes, I would. Thank you, Senator Klyne.
I think that AZA is following the leadership of our Canada members, and we support similar changes to the legislation. Here in the United States, we have the Big Cat Public Safety Act supporting a ban on public ownership and requirements that only qualified institutions can hold and breed big cats, so we would certainly support similar legislation in Canada.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
The Chair: We will now go on to the critic of the bill, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you, all of you, for being here.
Senator Klyne has said, Mr. Lussier, that he consulted with you. Of course, he tells us constantly in the Senate that he is not part of the government. I would not consider simply a senator consulting or meeting with you and other members to be consulting on behalf of the government.
My first question will be for African Lion Safari. Ms. Gerth, your facility currently holds 19 of the 25 elephants in Canada. It would seem to me that since the government ignored the experience of 76% of the elephants in Canada, that they have cherry-picked their so-called evidence. My question is to you and both of your colleagues, Charlie Gray and Dr. Amy Chabot. First of all, has the Minister of the Environment, Senator Klyne or their staff visited ALS to consult with you on the welfare of elephants in Canada? Certainly, Charlie and Dr. Chabot are experienced in their fields as scientists in this field. Did they consult with you or were you part of the scientists they consulted with? In that order?
Ms. Gerth: The answer to that is yes and no. If you call a consultation a 45-minute to an hour Zoom call, then the answer is yes. I was asked to give my opinion on the cetaceans bill and how I thought that bill would be for elephants and great apes. My conversation led to why we were honing in on elephants and great apes and asked if any more animals would be added to this bill. At the time, it was a consultation to introduce — actually, it was CAZA and African Lion Safari. We didn’t have much information on the bill at that time.
At that first meeting, I actually asked ECCC to come out to African Lion Safari because they were quoting a lot of scientific information that was one-sided. I did ask them to come out to African Lion Safari, and I was told point-blank that they could not come to African Lion Safari because it would not be seen as a neutral position and that the government had to remain neutral. I replied to that saying that they would be doing their jobs by remaining neutral and researching on both sides.
Senator Plett: I would agree. Neutral would be getting both sides as opposed to not. Charlie Gray and Dr. Chabot, as scientists, were you part of the group that worked with the government on developing this?
Charlie Gray, Superintendent of Elephants, African Lion Safari: No.
Amy Chabot, Research and Conservation, African Lion Safari: No.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
My next question will be for the representatives of AZA. Thank you very much for being here. Senator Klyne has referred in part to Bill S-241 and held up your organization as the gold standard for accreditation of zoos, and I’m sure that is well deserved. In fact, any zoo that held accreditation from AZA was going to be exempt from the legislation in Bill S-241.
Do the veterinarians and scientists in your organization, sir, agree with the government’s assertion that elephants and great apes should not be kept in captivity because of the cruelty it represents? Can you tell the committee what AZA’s position is on whether there is conservation value in holding elephants in captivity?
Mr. Ashe: Yes, Senator Plett. Thank you. As I said in my statement, we do disagree with the assertion in the preamble of the bill that holding elephants and great apes in captivity is cruel. As I pointed out, even Jane Goodall has stated to the contrary with regard to great apes.
We believe the issue is the standard of care. We do not fear high standards. In fact, we believe in and we endorse high standards, and we support legislation to improve the standards of care for elephants and great apes and all animals.
We do see great value in the presence of these animals in well‑qualified, zoological institutions, not just for the conservation work that gets done and supported directly through their presence in these facilities, but the conservation education that occurs and the opportunity for the public to learn about what’s happening to these animals in nature and what they can do to support it.
When I was running the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the U.S., we banned the sale of ivory in the United States to help address the global scourge of elephant poaching and trafficking. One of our greatest allies in that effort was accredited zoos and aquariums who joined a public campaign, 96 Elephants, to inform the public and policymakers about the urgent need to control trafficking in ivory. It was a very important role.
Senator Plett: Were you consulted by the government on this bill, sir?
Mr. Ashe: I was not consulted directly, but I believe our members in Canada were, senator.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Do I have any time left?
The Chair: I will put you on second round. May we now go to the government leader, Senator Gold.
Senator Gold: Welcome all. Thank you for your contribution to our study.
My first two questions are really for CAZA and AZA. Both, of course, are voluntary organizations. Maybe the first part of the question is more to CAZA. My kids were born in Toronto. I took them and my grandkids to the Toronto Zoo; and from Quebec, as a kid, I went to Granby Zoo. It was so long ago I can’t remember. Do I understand corectly that they are no longer accredited by CAZA but by AZA? Can you just sort of share with us when they left and perhaps why? That’s question number one.
My second question would be about the standards, whether CAZA or AZA. I assume, of course, they are binding on your members who are accredited by you. Can you talk about the process of verifying that they are complying with their standards? What is the process or consequences for those institutions who may be found not to be compliant or fully compliant?
My last question is for African Lion Safari. You have the bulk of the elephants here in Canada. Can you just talk a little bit more — you addressed it, Ms. Gerth, or others — what are the standards you are currently using to assess the welfare of the animals that you are responsible for? When were those standards last updated? Can you just share a little bit about the scientific basis upon which you the standards you have and use?
Mr. Treichel: In terms of the departure of Toronto and Calgary, they were both AZA- and CAZA-accredited at one point in time. I don’t know why they made the decision to leave CAZA. It could probably be economics. I think that’s a question better posed to them.
And the other question is around the standards themselves and the process?
Senator Gold: Yes, please.
Mr. Treichel: Our process is very similar to AZA’s process. It is very rigorous in terms of inspection. We have 332 distinct standards within CAZA that look at every aspect from animal welfare, veterinary care, conservation, education and engagement, collection planning, physical facilities themselves and, of course, safety and security, which is safety for animals, staff and public.
Our inspection process is identical to what AZA does. We have an inspection team that goes out every five years and inspects members. They open every cupboard, every drawer. It is quite an invasive inspection. In fact, we have an MOU with AZA that when there is an institution that has both AZA and CAZA membership, that the CAZA members join the AZA inspection as well and does it at the same time.
In addition, Canada also has an annual self-attestation, which is something that I know AZA doesn’t have. We make it mandatory that our association members look at our standards and then go through a standards-inspection form every year to ensure that they are continually compliant with our standards.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
Maybe I could just ask the AZA representative if there is anything you want to add before we get the answer from African Lion Safari? Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ashe: Yes. I think the processes are in fact similar. As I said, AZA has an independent accreditation commission. Our members have to go through accreditation at least every five years, but what is key to AZA accreditation is not just the standard; it’s the enforcement of the standard. An AZA accreditation is not a once-in-five-years requirement. Our commission meets monthly and maintains a continuous docket of incident reporting. For instance, currently, there are 10 incidents under active review. We average 65 to 70 incident reports and follow-up annually. Our commission also responds to external complaints, and there are currently 13 under active review with 54 having been addressed and resolved already in 2024.
You asked about the consequence. The important issue with AZA accreditation is that failure to follow our standards has consequence. In our most recent set of accreditation hearings in March, two longstanding members, Alexandria Zoo in Louisiana and Ellen Trout Zoo in Texas, lost their accreditation. In 2021, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, a longstanding and highly respected and valued member of AZA, lost its accreditation. Since 2010, 32 AZA-accredited facilities have lost their accreditation because of failure to adhere to standards. Enforcement is the priority in AZA, and failure to follow standards has clear consequence. Thank you.
Senator Gold: I have run out of time, but I do hope that, at second round, African Lion Safari will talk about standards, and others might join in as to on what scientific basis they use and to whom they turn, whether it is members or outside experts.
The Chair: Certainly. We will get back to it.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to our panel members. It is quite appreciated that you take the time to come to Ottawa to meet with us. I appreciate it.
My first question is to the representatives of the African Lion Safari. In 2021, it was disclosed by CBC that you had agreed to sell two elephants to the Fort Worth Zoo in Texas, separating them from their mothers with whom they had been living for eight years. Gigi’s daughter Emily and Natasha’s daughter Nellie were the two elephants in question. It was disclosed that this was done for a sale price of $1 million each plus a potential bonus of $200,000 if Emily was to deliver a baby in a certain time. This agreement was cancelled by the Fort Worth Zoo in Texas because of public pressure.
Do you think it was respectful of the emotions or the sentient feelings of these animals to be separated from their mothers after fifteen and eight years respectively?
Ms. Gerth: Thank you very much for the question. African Lion Safari, like any other zoological facility, participates in managed conservation programs for many species, including elephants. The two elephants in question were actually sisters travelling together.
As part of an elephant program, for the viability of the population and to have genetic diversity, we do have to move out some elephants to different institutions. The two elephants in question were actually suited for the male bull at Fort Worth Zoo. Fort Worth Zoo has a dedicated conservation program for the Asian elephant, and they recently invested several millions of dollars into their new facility for elephants and rhinos. We were quite happy with the proposed transfer because this would have led to those two elephants in question being able to fulfill a natural right to be with another herd so that they could breed.
Senator Dalphond: Why could they not stay within your own park? It is a huge park.
Ms. Gerth: The bull that we have would not have been suited for the two elephants that we were proposing to move.
I just wanted to add, something about the money in question. African Lion Safari is a for-profit organization. There is no difference between a not-for-profit leasing or paying another institution or country for a lease fee to have another animal come into their animal collection. Fort Worth Zoo, recognizing the value of our elephant population, offered to provide us some money so that we could reinvest in our Asian elephant facility.
Senator Dalphond: I assume from what you say that the conclusion was that it was in the best interests of these two elephants to go to Texas and that there would be no emotional trauma associated with it?
Ms. Gerth: Sorry, no what?
Senator Dalphond: Emotional trauma or emotional consequences?
Ms. Gerth: Do I think that there was going to be emotional trauma?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Gerth: No, I do not.
Senator Dalphond: You think there was no consequence for them?
Ms. Gerth: No.
Senator Dalphond: And it was also reported that you still use bullhooks to control elephants. I understand that AZA has banned the use of billhooks to control animals but not CAZA. Is it your intent to stop using this equipment?
Ms. Gerth: I cannot speak for AZA. African Lion Safari does not use a bullhook; we use a guide. We also use verbal cues and target training with a focus on positive reinforcement.
Senator Dalphond: You don’t use a bullhook at all?
Ms. Gerth: No. We use a guide.
Senator Dalphond: Did you have the report corrected, because that is what is reported?
Ms. Gerth: In the newspaper?
Senator Dalphond: The CBC reported that.
Ms. Gerth: Well, I would have to say that it is CBC.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Dalphond: I know some people think CBC is bad and should be shut down. Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for providing your testimony.
I would like to focus my question along the theme of this concept of conflating captivity into becoming a harm. Under that purview, I have listened to testimony from Mr. Ashe where you provided, I believe, that great apes and elephants in captivity can lead, in fact, better lives than their counterparts in the wild. Ms. Gerth, you mentioned, I believe, that there was no science to support that great apes and elephants should not be kept in captivity. I think there was a reference you mentioned with respect to one-sided science. Can you expand upon that, please, Ms. Gerth?
Ms. Gerth: I hope everyone saw in the package I did submit that there was a rebuttal or a refute letter to the original letter supplied by Senator Klyne from the “elephant experts.” There is other information, other scientific-based information, that does show that elephants in human care do thrive. I think that we need to really hone in on captivity equals cruelty because just the mere fact of having elephants in captivity does not equate to cruelty.
I will defer to Charlie to see if he wants to add to that.
Mr. Gray: One of the important things is that captivity or elephants in human care is an evolving thing. A lot of the research that’s going on now reflects our current situation with elephants and our current practices and standards with elephants now. That’s proving to be that elephants in a lot of situations like this are doing very well. As evidence for that, our herd at African Lion Safari is multi-generational. They have sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandfathers and grandmothers. It’s very rewarding for the elephants, and their life experience is much better than it has been in decades past in other traditional zoos.
Senator Prosper: So captivity doesn’t necessarily equate to cruelty. Some of the testimony we heard with respect to great apes and elephants is regarding specific characteristics with respect to their cognitive abilities, their social environments and their longevity that seem to distinguish them from other, let’s say, domesticated animals, where one can look at dogs or cats. Do you see those two as being distinct in terms of the impacts of captivity?
Mr. Gray: I would say that every species is distinct, and to say that the value of captivity is to be diminished just because it’s this species, I don’t think that’s very relevant. We try our best to provide for their cognitive abilities, their social relationships and their life experiences. That’s our goal. In that respect, yes, we do our best to provide as enriching an environment as we can for the elephants.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Mr. Ashe: If I could just add briefly, senator, I would agree with that. Every animal and every species of animal has unique needs and social structure. It’s the standard of care, and it’s the commitment to recognizing animals as individuals with individual needs physically, socially and emotionally, and so it’s the commitment to that standard and providing that level of care that’s important.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Chair: We will now go to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much to all of you for being here today and for your important testimony.
I’m going to address my questions to the African Lion Safari. First of all, some critics, including recent comments in Parliament, argue that elephants in Canadian zoos are not suited to Canada’s harsh winter conditions, claiming they must be kept indoors and sheltered for much of the winter. Based on your experience and observation, does this claim about elephants’ winter discomfort reflect reality? Do the elephants under your care actually show negative behaviour toward winter conditions, and how do you ensure their well-being throughout the year, especially during those colder months?
Mr. Gray: The majority of our elephants were born and raised multi-generationally in our environment in Canada. There’s not one day of the year the elephants don’t go outside. They’re very acclimated to our winters. I know the winters aren’t as severe as they have been in years past, but we’ve never had any issue with the elephants in our environment in southern Ontario. To confirm this, we’ve done thermographic studies on the elephants to see how they handle the different conditions, not just in the winter but in the summer as well. To tell you the truth, our elephants do very well with our conditions, and we’ve never had any issues that way. As subsequent generations of elephants have been born at our facilities, they seem to tolerate the cold days better and better. Our baby elephants that have been born there, when we get a snowfall, they’re like kids on a snow day. They run and play, and they really love it.
Senator Batters: I appreciate that.
From your submission, you express a significant concern regarding Bill S-15, pointing out that it was crafted not as a law focused on collective well-being but rather that it follows a prohibition approach. You also note that, as the sole institution in Canada with a large herd of elephants, it’s particularly discouraging to you that African Lion Safari was not consulted before the introduction of this bill, especially given the substantial impacts it could have on your Asian elephant conservation program. Could you please tell us a bit about the specific impacts you anticipate Bill S-15 will have on your Asian elephant conservation program, and how do you foresee this legislation affecting the daily management of your herd and long-term conservation efforts?
Mr. Gray: One thing that I think is very important for our elephant herd is breeding, having offspring, seeing a little sister. That’s very enriching for our elephants socially, emotionally and physically, and to deny them that right, I think, would be damaging.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
I also want to ask one further question. Senator Klyne, the sponsor of Bill S-15, has stated repeatedly that he does not see conservation benefit to keeping elephants in captivity. In his second-reading speech, he attempted to portray a situation where elephants in Canadian zoos are suffering, claiming that in North American zoos, elephant deaths outnumber births by a ratio of 2:1, thereby suggesting that their captivity has no conservation value. Do you agree with Senator Klyne’s statement that keeping elephants in captivity offers no conservation benefit? If you disagree, can you explain how elephants behave and thrive in captivity at your facility?
Mr. Gray: Again, I would have to disagree. I think those statistics are a bit misleading because, traditionally, elephants were brought in from the wild prior to CITES. Since 1976, when the Asian elephant was placed on the endangered species list, we’ve had to rely on captive breeding of Asian elephants to bring them into North America. As that population has aged out, the ones that were imported in 1976, yes, you’re going to have a higher ratio of deaths to births, just because you have a large population that’s all aging. Just like Baby Boomers, they’re aging out at the same time. I think that’s a pretty significant blip in the statistics.
If you look at the population in Canada, we’re doing very well. We’ve had a lot of births. None of our elephants at African Lion Safari were sourced from wild populations. They’ve either come from other zoos, or the majority of them have been born and raised at African Lion Safari, so there’s no pressure on the wild population for our herd of elephants.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Before I begin, I think I should declare a conflict of interest, because I am a lover of animals. My dream was to become a veterinarian, so I am biased in favour of animals.
I would like to delve deeper into the subject matter raised by Senator Prosper in his questions, because that is the very topic I would like to explore in greater detail.
I agree with you that keeping animals in captivity is not cruel. On that point, we are agreed.
My second point is that animals are different from one another; they are unique and show cognitive intelligence — social intelligence, as one example. Once, for fun, I googled the term “animal intelligence.” All sorts of results came up. Some sources listed the octopus as the most intelligent animal; others listed the pig. All animals are intelligent in specific ways, and some, such as the rat, are smarter than others. When keeping such an animal in captivity, its environment must be modified if its intelligence is to be taken into account. I learned a new term, “environmental enrichment,” which describes adapting the animal’s environment in order to head off certain negative impacts it might otherwise experience.
Can you please talk a bit about some of the modifications or environmental enrichment measures that you put in place for animals such as elephants and great apes to improve their living conditions and, to the extent possible, avoid negative impacts?
You invited us to come visit your facility. This is a committee study, but it is true that we ought to come out and see for ourselves your environmental enrichment measures and other measures. That said, could you please tell us about some of them?
[English]
Mr. Gray: A lot of what we do for enriching the elephants — I can’t really speak to great apes — but we have a large property with woodlands, streams and ponds. The elephants basically enrich themselves on our property. We have over 100 different species of native plants with which they can choose to display their natural behaviours of foraging and feeding and things like that. It’s very interesting to see their different preferences through different times of the year. The other thing that’s very enriching is elephants just being elephants, to be able to be in a large herd, to interact with each other and to have their likes and dislikes. They are all individual, and the way they fit together is amazing. I think by having a large area and a large herd of elephants, it’s basically almost self-enriching. There is very little that we have to do to add to that. We do enrichment as far as different methods of feeding them, of keeping them occupied with more or fewer toys that they can play with — logs and balls and things like that — but we try to make things as natural as possible for them.
Mr. Treichel: As our colleagues from AZA stated, proper management and welfare is a critical element of how zoos operate in this day and age. Things like enrichment, behavioural management and behavioural training are all part of our standards now. We find that is critical in terms of providing proper welfare for animals in human care. Things like behavioural training over the years has completely changed the way we do business. Where we used to have to use aversive stimulus to move an animal to another location, we now use positive reinforcement and training opportunities to do that.
We’ve had this discussion numerous times. I know this isn’t about elephants or apes, but the same standards apply to these species across the board in zoos. If you wanted to take a blood sample off a tiger 20 years ago, you would have to do aversive stimulus with a drug and darts and manual restraint. Now our whole approach to it is to make this a positive experience, make them cooperate in their care through a training opportunity through behavioural management. That alone acts like enrichment for a lot of animals in human care.
Senator Boyer: I’m picking up on the same train of thought and Senator Carignan’s question about the environment for the elephants. Mr. Gray, you had said that the majority go out every day into the 200-acre enclosure. How many hours a day are they allowed into the enclosure? Is that shared among all 17, or are they divided up at all?
Mr. Gray: It depends. Part of enrichment is being able to be in different environments so that it’s unique and new to them. Every day, we have the elephants out as long as we’re working. Our workday is very long anyway, but it’s our goal to give them as much enrichment and opportunities to express their natural behaviours as possible.
Senator Boyer: That would probably be a 12-hour day they would be allowed into the enclosure? Is that what you’re saying about that?
Mr. Gray: It would depend on the day, and it would depend a lot on daylight as well, but yes, they would be outside for several hours every day.
Senator Boyer: Are they locked up at night?
Mr. Gray: I wouldn’t say they’re locked up. They’re in a heated barn, but they’re not actually locked up.
Senator Boyer: And they’re not chained or anything like that?
Mr. Gray: No.
Senator Boyer: Is there staff with them at night?
Mr. Gray: One of our staff comes back every night at 10:00. Usually that’s the last time we see them.
Senator Boyer: The last check-in is at 10:00, and then the staff leaves.
Mr. Gray: Yes.
Senator Boyer: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: One of the challenges that we were discussing yesterday in our hearing was that even for people who accept the idea that the time to keep elephants and great apes in captivity is coming to an end, there is this challenge of how you get from deciding that this is no longer appropriate to providing care to the animals who remain in captivity until that population dies out.
I wondered, since you are here from the Edmonton Valley Zoo — we have to discuss the elephant in the room, as it were. You have had personal experience dealing with the situation where there is an elephant living all alone and who cannot be moved for verified health reasons. You have faced, at your former institution, the challenge of how you deal with the last remaining member of the species in your captivity. Elephants and great apes are very social animals and depend on those family dynamics. If we say we’re not going to allow natural breeding, we’re going to use birth control and we’re going to wait until all those animals die out, there will eventually be at every facility the last elephant, the last orangutan or the last gorilla. Can you talk about what it meant in practical terms to deal with that scenario at the Edmonton Valley Zoo?
Mr. Treichel: I have dealt with that situation since 2007, when the African elephant Samantha was moved to the North Carolina Zoo. We made a commitment at that point in time, knowing we could not move that elephant because of health reasons, and that really cost the City of Edmonton a great deal of money. We put every effort into trying to make a social structure with her with staff. We always made it so we could follow the medical treatment guidelines of proper exercise and proper movement around the park and range of motion stuff. It was — not is, but was, and I say “was” because I’m retired now — but the staff who remains continue to this day with that kind of commitment to her. We had to make some concessions, but at the same time, our commitment was to provide the best possible welfare for this animal until the end of its life.
Senator Simons: Perhaps I can ask Mr. Ashe this question. If we allow the captive populations to slowly die out, what are the psychological consequences for the remaining animals? What would be the potential downside of letting those populations diminish to the point that there are one or two survivors left?
Mr. Ashe: That is perhaps the relevant point for you to consider as you contemplate the difference between a ban and an approach that relies on application of the highest standards and best practices. If you implement a ban and you see a population that steadily erodes, then the welfare of those animals will suffer, undoubtedly. That’s why we support the holding of these animals in human care, for the reasons that we have stated, and we support the active breeding to maintain populations of these animals, as we do with dozens and dozens of endangered and threatened species. We see tremendous conservation value in that. Your question is correct. If those populations are forced to decline by the use of a ban, then the welfare of those animals certainly will decline over time.
Senator Simons: I suppose the other solution for Canadian zoos is just to sell, ship or trade all their animals to American zoos. That just moves the problem where we can’t see it. Even if all the African Lion Safari elephants went to elephant farms in the American South, I don’t see how that actually solves the problem. In Lucy’s case, we should never have had her in the zoo in the first place, but that milk got spilt 50 years ago.
Senator McBean: Some of these questions are coming as follow-ups to everything that’s been said. Charlie, you were answering Senator Batters’ question about if there is a conservation value to captivity. You were saying that, since CITES, there’s the wild population and then there’s the population that is in zoos and is being held in captivity. Is there any support to the wild population from the elephants that are being kept in captivity?
Mr. Gray: There’s a big contribution, because it makes a difference if you can make that connection with an elephant — seeing an elephant, smelling an elephant, experiencing an elephant. So many conservationists that I know had their first connection with an elephant in a zoo or safari park, and that made them care about elephants and made them want to be a conservationist. We consider our elephants as ambassadors for their species. We hope that people coming away with that experience will care about the elephants and care about their habitat and care about preserving them for the future. I don’t know if elephants never forget, but you never forget an elephant.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
We know that one elephant is sad, and then you have a herd of elephants, and you’ve said that breeding is a really important part for them. I understand trying to send the sisters off so they can breed and flourish in an environment where they couldn’t breed. What is the target size of the herd? If you let the herd continue to breed, is there a target size? Do you end up having too many elephants? I suppose, on that, almost every park gets smaller, right?
Mr. Gray: Part of our mandate is to maintain an ex situ population not just with our park but through a network called the Species Survival Plan. We exchange animals and move animals around for better genetic diversity and to keep the population healthy. Yes, we can only care for so many elephants, and unless we expand, we have to think about that for the future, but we don’t want to stop breeding. In the future, probably, if we do go to move elephants, we would move them as close to a family group as we could.
Senator McBean: What do elephants in the wild do at night? Last question. You put them in a barn, but what do elephants in the wild do at night?
Mr. Gray: Elephants usually spend 18 hours of the day foraging for food in their natural habitat. They would be moving around quite a bit. Where they don’t have to search for food, things are a lot easier for them.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a quick question for you, Mr. Ashe. You were talking about ivory and the ban of ivory, which is a very good thing. I come from East Africa, and every few years when I go home I see the terrible damage. Of course, elephants are killed and the ivory is stolen. It’s the worst sight anyone can possibly see, to take the ivory out of the elephant. Is your organization working internationally to stop this?
Mr. Ashe: Yes, senator, we are working internationally on this. We have supported a ban on ivory sale in Japan and have worked with non-government and government organizations in Japan, which is the next big country. When the U.S. banned ivory trade, China and many European countries followed suit. The AZA is working with NGOs and others to put similar pressure on Japan to change their laws regarding elephant ivory and trade.
We do need to respect and recognize the countries in Africa where elephant populations are growing, like Botswana and Zambia and Zimbabwe and Kenya. People who have to live with elephants don’t view them the same way that we do, and they will need to manage elephants. Zoos can play an important role in that process.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senators, this is the worst —
Senator Plett: I know what you’re going to say, and I want to ask a question through you, Madam Chair, if I could, simply for clarification, because we won’t have time for a second round.
The Chair: I’m in your hands. Shall we extend this panel and then the next panel will have 45 minutes?
Senator Plett: I agree.
An Hon. Senator: No.
The Chair: I’m sorry.
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, I asked the member from AZA a question, and he answered to the best of his ability. I’ve asked every witness the same question, “Were you consulted?” He said he had not been but possibly members of AZA in Canada were. I’m simply asking, through you, chair, to the gentleman from AZA, whether he could send us, through the clerk, if members of AZA in Canada were consulted, and if so, which ones.
The Chair: Sure. Thank you. Can you please do that?
Senator Gold is dying to also ask a question.
Senator Gold: Chair, I did ask the question but my time ran out for the answer. I ask, through you, that those to whom I asked the question, specifically to African Lion Safari, about their standards, how they evolve and more generally how the standards evolved and on what basis and whose input they take. A written answer would be fine. I don’t want to delay things. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to everybody. Thank you for your understanding.
As you can see, we could learn from you over two hours. Thank you very much for being here. I know it takes a lot of time out of your work, so we really appreciate you being here.
We now welcome Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada; Rob Laidlaw, Executive Director, Zoocheck Canada, by video conference; and Michèle Hamers, Wildlife Campaign Manager, World Animal Protection.
We begin with opening remarks from Ms. Barbara Cartwright.
Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today on Bill S-15.
Humane Canada is the federation of humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or SPCAs, and we represent more than 50 of those organizations in every province and in two territories, 25% of which are responsible for the enforcement of animal cruelty and animal protection laws. As such, those members may be called upon to investigate animal cruelty and neglect allegations at animal-based entertainment centres.
Sadly, a grossly inadequate and legally inconsistent patchwork of federal and provincial measures, coupled with weak standards on behalf of the Canadian industry associations, has resulted in the proliferation of substandard zoos and private ownership of wild animals which threaten both animal welfare and conservation. Therefore, Humane Canada supports Bill S-15 and ECCC’s efforts to identify species that should not be kept in captivity, while also convening a national round table in order to improve standards for other captive wildlife.
We are pleased to see that the bill borrows very heavily from the Forty-Second Parliament’s Bill S-203, and it prohibits the use of these animals for entertainment purposes.
I’m also pleased to say that we have broad agreement across the animal welfare sector for how the bill can be improved. I will provide those areas now in brief, and my colleagues who are joining me today will provide further details.
First of all, we are different from the panel you just heard from in that we are recommending a full ban on elephant captivity effective immediately, prohibiting breeding and only providing permits for import or export based on individual animal welfare.
As a committee, you have received much evidence already on how elephants are wide-ranging, highly social, highly sensitive sentient animals that should not be held in captivity in Canada. They provide no conservation value to their wild conspecifics and cannot be released back to the wild, nor is it in the elephant’s best interest.
In their natural habitat, they typically roam about 8 to 12 kilometres per day, and their ranges are up to 10,000 square kilometres. In comparison, as you’ve heard, African Lion Safari provides about 200 acres for its 17 elephants, which equates to only about 0.81% of a square kilometre, which is less than a fraction of a per cent of their normal range.
There is increasing recognition in the zoo sector across North America that elephants should not be held in captivity. I want to share the following quote from a former executive director of Detroit Zoo, back in 2004, as I find it illuminating:
So there were just so many things that we realized were major compromises for the elephants, and that no matter how much we love elephants and want to be near elephants and see elephants, we said this is just fundamentally wrong for us to do this.
Further, a U.S. judge who ruled against the Los Angeles zoo over their treatment of elephants in 2012 stated in his decision that:
Captivity is a terrible existence for any intelligent, self‑aware species, which the undisputed evidence shows elephants are. To believe otherwise, as some high-ranking zoo employees appear to believe, is delusional.
With regard to the great apes, we are no less concerned with their captivity as sentient beings with complex social lives and family groups. However, we hold that, with evidence and under permit, there may be animal welfare and conservation purposes for providing limited licences for their captivity.
Second, we recommend including non-native big cats and their hybrids into the current framework of Bill S-15. Similar to elephants and great apes, they are also wide-ranging, highly social, complex, sentient beings, and replicating their spacious, complex, natural environments that they inhabit is impossible in captive settings.
Third, we urge the committee to close what I would call the science loophole in the WAPPRIITA clause of Bill S-15, clause 10(1)(1.1)(a). Currently, the bill allows permits for the individual animal’s best interests, conservation or scientific research. We see this as a glaring loophole and ask the committee to join science and conservation into one in order to ensure that valid scientific research is measurably benefitting wild populations. The term we propose is “science for a conservation purpose” to establish that conservation science must clearly connect to improving the long-term viability of the species in the wild.
Finally, we ask that you include a mechanism that would allow the Governor-in-Council, upon consultation, to add other wild species in the future that align with those science or societal-based developments around the effects of captivity.
In closing, I want to address the concept that the government should take a standard-setting approach. We are very pleased that they did not take a standard-setting approach in this bill. As the organization that founded Canada’s codes of practice with regard to on-farm animal welfare some 40 years ago, which sets voluntary standards for industry, and as a founding member of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, known as CCAC, which the committee heard about yesterday, more than 60 years ago, which sets voluntary standards for the care of animals in research, we in no way support the inclusion of or reference to any standards in this bill. Standards must be fluid and ever evolving to reflect new animal welfare science. We were pleased to hear CAZA agree with that today. Nor do we support any organization exemptions either. Organizations change.
For further clarity, the primate guidelines of the CCAC that were referred to yesterday here at committee refer solely to primates kept in research facilities, not in zoos or in private ownership. Great apes were specifically not included in the development of these guidelines as these animals are not held in scientific Canadian institutions. Hence, as you will read in the document if you read it, the document is not applicable for the considerations regarding the ethics or the care of great apes.
We do support the government’s move to initiate a round table process to raise the bar for standards for animals left in captivity.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cartwright.
Rob Laidlaw, Executive Director, Zoocheck Canada: Good afternoon, chair and members of the standing committee. I am the executive director of Zoocheck, a Canadian-based wildlife protection organization that was established in 1994. Zoocheck’s activities over the past 40 years have been largely focused on wildlife-in-captivity issues and have included numerous elephant welfare and protection initiatives in Canada and abroad as well.
We support the current version of Bill S-15 as well as the additional amendments recommended by the consortium of animal welfare organizations and several of the largest zoos, which were articulated by Ms. Cartwright. We believe that Bill S-15 is a thoughtful, reasonable bill that considers changing public attitudes and values, the relevant science and, most importantly, the welfare and conservation of wild animals. We fully support Bill S-15’s intent to substantially restrict the keeping of elephants in Canada.
Our position is based on the fact that, in our experience and knowledge, elephants are behaviourally complex, wide-ranging animals that are not adapted to life in captivity, especially here in Canada; that satisfying their full range of spatial, biological, social and cognitive needs is not really achievable in captivity; that captive breeding of elephants, which is often used as the excuse for keeping elephants, is not currently a useful strategy to help elephants survive in the wild; and that research on captive elephants is not sufficient to justify their keeping in captivity.
Throughout the years, Canada has had its fair share of captive elephant issues and controversies — involving poor conditions, social isolation of elephants, abusive treatment, health and welfare problems, and more. The debate and dialogue throughout the years have been robust, and many in the zoo community have recognized that things need to change.
The number of Canadian zoos that keep elephants has dwindled drastically to just four; and only one of them, African Lion Safari, seems intent on continuing to keep elephants. Other Canadian zoos have already terminated their elephant-keeping programs, including the Toronto Zoo and the Calgary Zoo, as have their counterparts in the U.S., such as the Detroit Zoo, the San Francisco Zoo and zoos in other parts of the world.
The decrease in elephant keeping in zoos and a corresponding decrease in the use of elephants in circuses and in businesses held in private hands is the result of several factors, including changing public attitudes, greater concern about animal welfare, increased knowledge about elephants and the adverse effects of captivity, and a shift by progressive zoo industry members toward more conservation and animal-welfare-oriented collection planning.
As I indicated, elephants are active, wide-ranging animals with a broad range of exceptionally advanced cognitive, emotional and social capabilities. They are adapted to thrive in particular kinds of wild environments that provide space to roam in complex, flexible, natural conditions; freedom of choice; appropriate climates; and opportunities to exist in the context of natural elephant societies. They also require an ability to engage all of their complex cognitive processes — something that can’t be accomplished in any meaningful way in captivity.
Claims have been made that breeding elephants in captivity is vital to the survival of elephants in the wild, but the North American zoo population of elephants is small, and there is little chance that any zoo-bred elephants anywhere will ever be released. There are still meaningful numbers of elephants in the wild. In some areas, like Kruger National Park in Africa, birth control has been administered to stop the population of elephants from rising. For years and years, establishing and re-establishing elephants in vacant habitats has been routinely and effectively accomplished by the translocation of wild elephants who already possess the fitness and skills to survive in the wild from one location to another. It is cheaper, faster and a far more effective way of increasing wild elephant populations.
The immediate severe threats that wild elephants face, such as poaching and habitat loss, are well known, and addressing them does not require elephants in zoos or studies on husbandry or how to get elephants reproducing.
I could say a lot more, but in the interest of time and having more time for questions, in closing, I want to offer a comment on why I think elephants and great apes deserve consideration like that bestowed if Bill S-15 is passed. We now know so much about them and so much about how similar they are to us. We know they feel discomfort and pain. They suffer from negative emotional states. They think, solve problems and establish lifelong relationships. They love each other and look after each other. They cooperate in the community, grieve for their dead and more. I can’t think of two types of animals that are more deserving of the consideration that is inherent in Bill S-15. They are animals that really deserve a better lot in our society.
I think it’s the right time for Bill S-15, and that the public agrees. We’ve seen that with trends in decline of elephant keeping and what’s happening with other animals. I urge you to support Bill S-15 and the amendments as articulated earlier by Ms. Cartwright. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Michèle Hamers, Wildlife Campaign Manager, World Animal Protection: I’m here on behalf of World Animal Protection. In the interest of time, for more information about the organization or myself, please see the attached biography in our upcoming submission.
World Animal Protection is supportive of Bill S-15 in its current form. Alongside Canada’s leading animal welfare groups, we have submitted communications on how we believe the bill can be strengthened. As mentioned, we have also found consensus on these recommendations with the Jane Goodall Institute and Canada’s leading zoos.
In the interest of time, I will focus on two out of our four recommendations. First, include non-native big cats into the existing framework; and, second, allow for the keeping of great apes and non-native big cats only when it is in the animal’s best interest or as part of a legitimate conservation program, which should include a clear strategic plan to protect the species in the wild, as well as their habitats, resulting in the reintroduction of the species.
We fully support the intention to phase out elephants in captivity because, as mentioned by the previous speaker, it has little, if any, conservation value, nor is it in the best interest of individual animals — due to our climate, as well as other limitations inherent to captive settings.
I would also like to address claims that our WAPPRIITA Act and the international CITES convention are sufficient to protect wild animals in Canada. This is inaccurate. CITES is a trade agreement that helps facilitate trade in wild animals, whether endangered or not. The only thing that CITES does is to require assessments and permits for animals that are listed in the treaty. It is critical to understand that CITES does not concern itself with animal welfare, nor with the evaluation as to whether a wild animal can be humanely kept in captivity.
We also know that attitudes of the public toward wild animals are changing. However, with a lack of consistent, meaningful laws and regulations throughout Canada and a largely regressive zoo industry, protection of vulnerable captive wild animals remains absent. These are all reasons why it is critical that the federal government shows leadership on this issue.
One group of animals not served well by the current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations are the non-native big cats. Like elephants and great apes, big cats have complex biological, behavioural, husbandry and welfare needs that are exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy in captivity. Captivity limits the ability of wild animals to express natural behaviours, which puts their well-being at risk. While this is true for all wild animals, the problems are magnified for big cats. These animals are wide-ranging, highly intelligent, socially complex and engage in numerous behaviours such as hunting, swimming, climbing, digging and socializing. Many also have nocturnal habits.
Think of a typical captive setting: Working hours, as we heard in previous testimony, do not line up with natural habits and behaviours — in the case of big cats especially — because they will be locked indoors for a substantial portion of the day, at those are times when they are typically most active. With regard to small cages and enclosures, an average tiger enclosure, for example, is 18,000 times smaller than their natural home range. Hunting behaviours, which is an important behaviour for big cats, are almost completely eliminated. Feeding big cats live prey is obviously unethical, but that does mean that highly motivated behaviours — such as stalking, chasing, capturing and killing a prey animal — cannot be reproduced in captivity. Lastly, in terms of social behaviour, they can’t choose who they want to hang out with or spend their time with.
You can see that all these critical behaviours are being limited to the extreme in captive settings. Throughout Canada, the conditions faced by big cats in most zoos, all commercial businesses and even when kept as pets, are dismal and often horrific. I have witnessed many of these conditions.
Big cat captivity should only be allowed when it is in an animal’s best interest or, as mentioned, for a legitimate conservation purpose. I believe that conservation science, as referenced in Bill S-15, needs to be clearly defined as something that improves the long-term viability of a species in the wild. The unfortunate truth is that most breeding in Canadian zoos has no conservation benefit. The animals are bred for display, not for release back into the wild. At a time when most big cat species are in trouble, the resources required to keep these animals for public display would be better spent on conservation initiatives that protect the habitat and help address threats to the species in the wild.
In summary, while we are supportive of the bill, we strongly recommend considering the proposed amendments put forward by World Animal Protection and other animal welfare groups.
I look forward to hearing your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hamers. Can you please send to the clerk the last two recommendations that you were not able to go through? Thank you for respecting our time.
We will now move to questions, starting with the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Klyne: For the record on Bill S-15, my office has met with, spoken with and consulted with the Toronto, Calgary, Granby and Assiniboine Park zoos, the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada and other animal welfare NGOs.
My first question is for Ms. Cartwright, and feel free, other panel members, if you wish to follow up. Together with the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Zoo de Granby, the Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Jane Goodall Institute Canada and other animal welfare NGOs, you have independently proposed amending Bill S-15. Specifically, you propose that exotic big cats, such as lions and tigers, be added to the bill’s protections. In addition, World Animal Protection Canada estimates that over 7,000 lions, tigers and leopards are privately owned in Canada. Can you please explain the proposed amendment, and do you see both animal welfare and public safety advantages?
Ms. Cartwright: Yes, we would like to see non-native big cats — we do have in our submission a list of what that refers to under that umbrella — added directly in beside great apes, basically so it would be elephants, great apes and those non‑native, big cat species. They would be treated exactly the same as what we are proposing for great apes to be treated differently, as we propose that elephants be fully banned.
Yes, definitely there would be a significant increase in animal welfare. I think most Canadians are shocked when they find out that you can just own a tiger. You can own it in your back yard. You can set up your own zoo here in Ontario, if you want. There are no regulations for it whatsoever. I think that is alarming from a public safety perspective; although, I know and understand that this is an Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, bill and that there was some reluctance around the public safety mandate, but I do believe it is very important that that is taken into consideration in the conversation here at Senate committee.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Laidlaw. Again, the panel can respond following his answers. African Lion Safari and Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, have opposed Bill S-15 and submitted that the status quo represents the legal ideal for elephants in Canada and that their private organization is the ideal regulator of wildlife captivity in Canada. How do you respond?
Mr. Laidlaw: I would absolutely disagree with their assessment. I respect their right to have their own opinion and to promote their own organization and its accreditation program and standards, but I don’t agree.
I think that CAZA is an under-resourced organization. It’s very small. In meetings just a couple of years ago, the former executive director, Jim Facette, said that they had trouble even finding people to participate in their summer accreditations for facilities that were already accredited. That said a lot to me about the limitations that they have. They are a small organization. They don’t have a great capacity, unlike an organization that is larger, like the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, or AZA.
I also think the standards that they promulgate, while they have changed over the years, are not really acceptable standards, certainly not from the perspective of those who look through the lens of animal welfare and wildlife conservation. When you look at any zoo’s standards, what you have to realize is that the standards promulgated by associations to a large extent are a low bar. They are the line in the sand below which you can’t be a member and above which you can. They are actually a minimum standard rather than an optimal standard. I know they are always portrayed as the optimal standard or gold standard, but they are not. These standards can only improve incrementally, because to a large extent, the process of improving —
The Chair: Mr. Laidlaw, can you please send the rest of your answer in writing, because we are really tight for time. I apologize to you.
Mr. Laidlaw: Sure.
The Chair: Senators, we all have three and a half minutes to ask questions.
Senator Klyne: Can I go on the second round.
The Chair: There won’t be a second round, I’m sorry, senator. Otherwise, we won’t be able to go into the Senate, and then we can’t sit.
Senator Plett: I will try to be brief.
I do want to, at least, put on the record as well — Senator Klyne likes to put on the record who he has talked to, and, in fact, what he failed to mention is that Jane Goodall, in fact, does not support this. She believes that elephants and great apes, in fact, serve a big purpose in human care. Why doesn’t he say that as well?
Of course, he mentioned CAZA and African Lion Safari. Mr. Laidlaw says that they are not good organizations. Well, we heard AZA a few minutes ago, and they take exactly the same approach. The organization that Mr. Laidlaw believes is the best organization supports CAZA and African Lion Safari.
The reason elephants walk as far as they do, Ms. Cartwright, is because they are looking for food, not because they need exercise. Kruger National Park has over 20,000 square kilometres, and if they were in Canada, they would not be allowed to have elephants.
My question is this: The International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, has stated clearly that holding animals in human care has significant conservation value. You, obviously, all disagree with IUCN. Can you explain to this committee why you disagree with this highly respected international conservation organization and how your organization has more expertise than they do?
Ms. Cartwright: Absolutely. Thank you, senator.
First of all, I would like to say that you have all been submitted Jane Goodall Institute Canada’s support of the bill and of the amendments, so that’s news to me, since the Jane Goodall Institute Canada represents Dr. Jane Goodall here. I know she was very keen with Bill S-241 to make sure everyone was included. We have had very good relationships — all of us — with the Jane Goodall Institute Canada, and so, as I said, we submitted this to the committee. Actually, it was the Jane Goodall Institute that submitted it, so it is there on the record.
With regard to the IUCN, certainly keeping animals in captivity for entertainment is not what they are discussing. There are, certainly, valid reasons, particularly around individual animal welfare, to keep them in captivity. A good example of that is sanctuaries. I come from a long background of working for great ape conservation in Africa, particularly through sanctuaries where individuals, who are typically killed for the bush meat trade, have to be brought in because their whole families are killed and they are the babies. They are raised in captivity, because they can’t survive on their own, and then the goal is to release them back into the wild.
Senator Plett: Chair, I am asking why they have more expertise than the IUCN, not how she feels about African elephants, please —
Ms. Cartwright: I am answering that question, senator, which is to say that the IUCN is not talking about facilities in non‑range states that are holding animals for entertainment purposes.
Senator Plett: Does Mr. Laidlaw have anything to add to that?
Mr. Laidlaw: Yes. I think what you are referring to, senator, is the IUCN’s Species Survival Commission guidelines for the use of ex situ management for species conservation. That document, if you read it, is a far-reaching and very high-level document that states pretty unequivocally that there are times when ex situ conservation and breeding of animals and management of animals has merit. What it doesn’t say is exactly what Ms. Cartwright said. It doesn’t deal with individual institutions, and it doesn’t say anywhere in that document that, yes, elephants should be kept. There are many reasons why they should not be kept. It is sort of a blue sky document. It is a great guidance document for the industry and for people looking at this, and it has a lot of good content, but it doesn’t say in there, “Yes, we endorse this kind of activity with elephants.” That would be a stretch to read it that way.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laidlaw.
Senator Gold: You heard the panel before this, and I would be interested in your comments in particular on what evidence you rely upon to reach the conclusion that there is a negative impact on elephants and large apes by being held in captivity. That’s really the question, if time permits you to answer. Failing that, perhaps you could submit it in writing, because I want to respect the time of everyone else, including you. You could elaborate on your concerns about incorporating standards in legislation. I was hoping that the committee will get information from the standards groups that we heard before as to exactly who they rely upon for their standards. I won’t ask you to comment on them, but if you could give me the scientific basis for the conclusions that you support, that captivity is cruelty.
Ms. Hamers: Thank you for that question, and I will take just the first part of your question. We will submit it in writing, because it’s a very long answer, and there is a lot of evidence, but it kind of touches on what was mentioned previously by Senator Plett.
What people are underestimating is that animals in captivity, yes, they are being fed, but what they’re missing is the psychological need to do the foraging. It is omitted in those situations. This has a high physical and psychological negative impact on these animals. That’s why they display stereotypical behaviours. With big cats, for example, a significant part in how they have evolved in the wild is to hunt. They get hungry and need to eat to survive, obviously. Those behaviours are so critical and inherent and innate to who they are that if they can’t perform them, they go into the area of abnormal behaviours, self‑mutilating behaviours and all those things. It’s not only about whether have enough to eat but there’s a big psychological component and a biological component of how these animals have evolved and are supposed to behave. Captivity enormously limits that. In the case of great apes, elephants and big cats, it’s all the same situation.
Ms. Cartwright: With regard to standards, we believe strongly that in order to create effective standards, there needs to be multi-stakeholder processes in place. That’s what happens at the National Farmed Animal Care Council. It’s very hard. They do, as Mr. Laidlaw mentioned, represent minimum standards at the end of the day, because you have multiple different perspectives all pushing for different things.
To codify them into law, they would stay that way and they wouldn’t actually undergo that ongoing infusion of new animal welfare science and new perspectives and opinions because, as this committee has heard and some of the questions have demonstrated, it’s very important that we keep moving forward. As we learn more, we know more and we do better for the animals that are in captivity. Putting them into law would likely hold them in place, as you know how hard it is to update law.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
The Chair: We will now go to the deputy chair, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: My first question is to Ms. Cartwright. Zoos play a crucial role in educating the public about the threats facing elephants and great apes. By limiting zoos’ ability to house these species, don’t you fear a decrease in public awareness and support for the conservation of those animals in their natural habitats?
Ms. Cartwright: It’s a great question. As a masters in education, I don’t agree with the fact that zoos are actually a valid conservation education process. In fact, there are studies, not enough for sure, but studies that show that there is no conservation education. There might be limited impact of moments of interest, but as far as actually what happens weeks later, years later, are there actually conservation of the species? That’s not what they’re learning. They’re learning is that we should have them in captivity and that they should benefit us and our entertainment.
Senator Batters: Could you provide us with those studies?
Ms. Cartwright: Absolutely. Actually, my colleague has some of them here.
Senator Batters: I only have three and a half minutes.
My other question is to Mr. Laidlaw. Could you provide recent examples where the current restrictions on importing elephants and great apes have been insufficient and therefore justifying the adoption of new legislative measures with Bill S-15?
Mr. Laidlaw: To a large extent, the CITES regulations that are delivered under WAPPRIITA are effective in regulating the trade, although I don’t think they negate the need for other types of protections for these animals, particularly for those animals that are already here. The animals that are already here, that are already in cages, or the ones that may be bred and will replace the ones that are here now are my primary concern. There’s room to have Bill S-15 serve in a somewhat complementary fashion to WAPPRIITA and CITES, and those added levels of scrutiny and vetting of what’s going on can only be good. I think it will be good for animals and it will be good for the conservation of these animals in the wild.
Senator Batters: Thank you. So no recent examples, but thank you for your additional comments.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to our panellists.
You were here earlier and heard some of the previous panel’s testimony. I asked if there was any kind of negative impact on two younger elephants, eight years old, I think, being separated from their mother and from their peers and being sent to Texas. They said no, there was no emotional consequence of that and that they would be with a better breeder or someone they could breed better with than someone in the herd. Do you have any studies or comments about this?
Ms. Hamers: Thank you for the question.
I would say there would be a significant psychological impact. Female elephants will stay with their moms their whole lives, so separation would be traumatic. Not only that, but the transportation itself and getting introduced into a new herd, all those things, have an impact on animals and are stressful and incredibly difficult to accomplish.
Senator Dalphond: Is there any study or any kind of observations or reports we could use to support that conclusion?
Ms. Hamers: We can find those for you.
Senator Dalphond: Please send it to the committee. Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for providing your testimony.
I’m quite curious about some of the testimony and comparing the testimony we heard with what we received with the previous panel. I could focus on getting a bit of an assessment of what was provided by you, Ms. Hamers. I think you were getting into the physical and psychological needs that these animals have — foraging, stalking, those attributes. You mentioned that for animals in captivity — correct me if I’m wrong on this — there’s a negative impact that evolves into abnormal behaviour, self‑harm, things of that nature. Is that quite common, or is it more the exception than the rule in this case?
Ms. Hamers: I would say that’s quite common. I don’t know if you have been to a zoo, but especially if you look at big cats, for example, you probably see them pacing a lot. It is because those innate urges are not being satisfied. To be honest, in captivity, it limits their natural behaviours. There are facilities that acknowledge that. We have a letter with Toronto Zoo and others that have acknowledged it and are doing their best to mitigate this, but at the end of the day, these wild animals haven’t evolved to be in captivity. There will always be inherent limits on natural behaviours and that will impact them. The more an animal gets frustrated by not being able to engage in those natural behaviours, it will display abnormal behaviours and other things. That’s quite normal, unfortunately, yes.
Senator Prosper: As a further question for any of the panellists: Within our previous panel, there were suggestions that proper accreditation, proper standards, are a way of addressing the needs and going to the point that captivity doesn’t necessarily equate to cruelty. Do you agree with that assessment?
Ms. Hamers: I think you can do your utmost best to try to give animals as much choice as they have in the wild, but at the end of the day it’s not the same.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.
Ms. Cartwright, you raised an interesting point when you say you’d prefer that the elephants not be grandfathered, or that they become grandfathers, I guess. The challenge is what you do with two dozen elephants. I have read all of Lucy’s medical records. I don’t think she can be moved without causing her great physical and emotional distress. For the elephants at the African Lion Safari Park who are healthy and young and in a community, if we just move them to the United States, then we’re not responsible for them anymore, but we have no idea what their fates will be. What is the solution? If we accept the argument that we shouldn’t have these animals in captivity, what do we do with the ones we have?
Ms. Cartwright: Thank you for the question.
I apologize if I gave the impression that there shouldn’t be grandfathering. I’m not a fan of grandfathering. Just from what you just said, from the perspective that it’s not good for them to be in captivity at a zoo, we should get them all to a sanctuary where they’re living as close as possible to a natural life, but that is a big undertaking, so I understand why there might have to be grandfathering. It’s the same process we went through with Marineland. We were sad to know that Bill S-241 would leave about 50 whales and dolphins in captivity at Marineland, but what do you do? We as a society are facing a conundrum: We have brought these animals into captivity and actively bred them up to be larger herds in Canada. Now we must accept that they should not be in captivity, and we have to care for what we have, not breed anymore and accept the consequences of our actions as a society.
Senator Simons: We’re not the ones accepting the consequences; they are.
Ms. Cartwright: Absolutely, and it’s very sad, but it would be sadder to keep breeding more so that we just punt it 50 years down the road and still have the same conversation then.
Senator Simons: Ms. Hamers, when I visit the Valley Zoo, I know everyone is hung up on the elephant, but I worry about the Amur tigers, because they don’t have a very large enclosure. There are two of them, which is probably not ideal since they are unsocial animals. I worry more about the roadside zoos, and I worry more about the rich person who decides it would be cool to have a cheetah. The original Jane Goodall Act had a provision for those large exotic cats. This one doesn’t. When the minister and his staff were here yesterday, the argument they gave was elephants and great apes get special consideration because they’re so highly intelligent. I’m worried about even the “dumbest” of exotic cats being kept in conditions that are unsafe for them and potentially unsafe for people around them.
Ms. Hamers: Yes, me, too, but I think we’re here to elevate the level of what’s acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, so whether it’s a roadside zoo or an accredited zoo where the standards are subpar, to be honest, we should look at all of them. I think there’s a good place for big cats. There is evidence — we will submit it; we created a brief with the other organizations — to show that there is a lot of evidence to say that big cats are psychologically and physiologically negatively influenced and that there are negative consequences to captivity, whether it’s high mortality rates with the cubs, whether it’s pacing or stereotypical behaviours, dental problems, feet problems — all caused by captivity. In the wild, we don’t really see those things.
Senator Boyer: My question is for Mr. Laidlaw. The African Lion Safari said that they do not use a bullhook, but they use a guide. Can you tell me the difference, please?
Mr. Laidlaw: I actually went onto the African Lion Safari website and the public platforms where people post their vacation and leisure photos. I saw many from 2023 that showed keepers carrying a straight implement with a point on the end. To me, that looked like what’s called the ankus, elephant stick or bullhook. A lot of people use that term, so I would challenge or question the assertion that there are no bullhooks or similar types of implements being used. I’m not suggesting that they’re being used abusively or anything, bu they are out there with those implements in their hands, according to the photos that I looked at.
Senator Boyer: What is a guide? She said “guide.”
Mr. Laidlaw: To me, “guide” is just another term for a bullhook, ankus or elephant stick.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is a simple one and is for all three organizations. Here is what I would like to know: How many veterinarians are directly employed by each of your organizations?
[English]
Ms. Cartwright: For us, it’s one. We’re only a small team, but we work with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association —
Senator Carignan: Directly.
Ms. Cartwright: On our payroll, we have one.
Ms. Hamers: It’s above my pay grade, but I can come back with an answer on that.
Senator Carignan: Please. And the other?
Mr. Laidlaw: I’m sorry. My translation wasn’t working, so I wasn’t able to know the question.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Is it working now? Can you tell us the number of veterinarians that work directly for your organization and are on your payroll?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Laidlaw, did you get the question?
Mr. Laidlaw: No. I do not have a translation of that, unfortunately. I apologize.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Can you tell us how many veterinarians work directly for your organization? I am referring to those who receive their pay directly from you, who are your employees.
[English]
Mr. Laidlaw: The way we operate is that we don’t have employees who are veterinarians working in-house. We use a lot of contracted services with veterinarians from around the world. For instance, we were heavily involved in Lucy the elephant, and we contracted the services of some of the leading elephant veterinarians in the world. We’ve sent veterinarians out to do assessments and other work — write reports — and we do have a veterinarian on our board. We contract out those services through a whole network of veterinarians who are specialists.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Am I to understand, then, that you have no veterinarians working directly for your organization?
[English]
Mr. Laidlaw: I would say that the people we use as consultants work directly for us. I can send you a list of who we’ve engaged over the years.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you. Can you please tell us how the campaign to free Baloo is going?
[English]
Mr. Laidlaw: Free Baloo?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Never mind.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you to all three witnesses for the short answers. That was very thoughtful of you. I guess I didn’t manage the first panel that well, so I’m sorry. I apologize to the senators as well. I’ll try to do a better job next time.
Thank you very much, witnesses, for being here. I’m sorry we are sending you away with a lot of homework. I sincerely apologize about that. Thank you so much. The clerk has kindly undertaken to put all that you will say on the website so the public can also see it. Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)