THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 2, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:46 a.m. [ET] to study 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’m Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia, the chair of this committee, and I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves starting on my left.
Senator Plett: My name is Senator Don Plett. I’m from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre Dalphond and I represent the senatorial division of De Lorimier, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I am Michèle Audette from Nitassinan, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Good morning. Brent Cotter, I’m a senator from Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I have to give you this earpiece reminder.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures.
To prevent disruptive – and potentially harmful – audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.
As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents:
All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.
When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down, on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table, where indicated.
Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must only plug in their earpieces to the microphone console located directly in front of them.
These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your cooperation.
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, I am pleased to welcome, from the International Elephant Foundation, Sarah Conley, Conservation Coordinator, welcome; from the Asian Elephant Specialist Group, Heidi Riddle, Vice-Chair, welcome; from the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, Adam Felts, Senior Curator of Animal Care and Director of Wellbeing, SAFE Asian Elephant Program Leader, by video conference, welcome. I welcome all of you. Thank you for joining us and giving up your time to present to us today.
We will begin, honourable senators, with opening remarks before we move on to questions. We’ll start with Sarah Conley, followed by Heidi Riddle and then Adam Felts.
The floor is yours, Ms. Conley.
You will have five minutes each, when you are ready.
Sarah Conley, Conservation Coordinator, International Elephant Foundation: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter.
My name is Sarah Conley. I have almost 25 years of elephant experience. I serve as the conservation coordinator for the International Elephant Foundation, or IEF. The IEF is a non‑profit that supports grassroots elephant conservation projects for all three species of elephants. We are globally recognized leaders in sustainable conservation, building a future where elephants thrive. In fact, that is our mission, to build a future where elephants thrive. In that, we also commend this committee for caring about the future of elephants.
In previous testimony, I have heard the assertion that elephants in human care do not offer any conservation benefit. This is a false assertion. Their contributions to conservation can be broadly categorized as access, inspiration and direct support.
Having well-cared-for elephants, easily accessible to scientists and researchers, has allowed great advancements in understanding diseases like Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpesvirus, which impacts both elephants in human care and in the wild, the notable testing of zoo elephants’ responses to chili peppers which has led to the use of chilies as a human-elephant conflict management tool and advancing knowledge of physiological needs so as to determine where and how far apart artificial water sources should be placed in range countries, to name some examples.
Studies in assisted reproduction are also extremely important and will become more so as populations decline and habitats are destroyed. We have seen this before in the efforts to save species like the California condor, the black-footed ferret and the northern white rhino which, because we started too late to save the species — primarily due to politics — has become functionally extinct as of 2023.
Elephants in human care serve as a genetic backstop. Habitats are increasingly fractured and destroyed, affecting gene flow and causing encapsulation.
If the worst should happen, as it did with the northern white rhino, it is vital to have a genetic insurance policy. If there had been a breeding program like African Lion Safari’s for the northern white rhino, they wouldn’t be functionally extinct. Instead, the last hope is through assisted-reproduction techniques developed by researchers and their partners, the animals in human care. Keeping elephants and healthy breeding herds is literally life or death for an endangered species.
Elephants also inspire. When families cannot afford expensive international trips to see wildlife in their dwindling habitat, zoos are how the public learns compassion and about the challenges facing elephants in the unsafe wild. This bill might put an end to that learning.
The experience of meeting an elephant inspires levels of understanding; for example, understanding the human impact on the environment; how increasing human populations force elephants into smaller and smaller spaces; community needs for food and transportation that end up superseding the needs of elephants and wildlife.
Removing the impetus for learning only separates the citizens from nature, when what we really need to do is to build deeper connections. Those deeper connections are built at zoos, providing an atmosphere for people to learn about the environment from their backyards all the way to the African savannah.
We live in a time of AI, virtual reality and YouTube rabbit holes where we zone out using our technology. When you meet an elephant in person, you remember it for the rest of your life. Do any of us remember what we watched on YouTube last week?
The IEF has supported hundreds of field projects since our inception. Direct support keeps boots on the ground protecting Kenya’s last remaining big tuskers, helps communities bordering Nepal’s Bardiya National Park learn how to safely live alongside elephants, and helps wildlife clubs in Cambodia and Uganda build the next generation of conservationists.
Staff from zoos, including from African Lion Safari, participate in GPS collaring operations to track herd movements, consult in workshops in India working to reduce elephant-train collisions and build capacity by helping to train mahouts in Sumatra to improve the welfare of elephants in human care over there, while assisting them to create a national, professional organization for mahouts which also focuses on improving conservation of wild elephants.
The access, inspiration and direct support that elephants in human care give to global elephant populations is irreplaceable. When one of the greatest contributors of modern elephant knowledge and husbandry has come from Canada, that should be a point of national pride, not under threat of destruction.
We need to build and deepen our connections to nature, not remove them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Now we’ll go to Ms. Heidi Riddle, please.
Heidi Riddle, Vice-Chair, IUCN-SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group: Thank you.
[Translation]
Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I am a francophone from Switzerland, but I will be giving my opening remarks in English. However, I would be pleased to answer your questions in French.
[English]
My name is Heidi Riddle. I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to the proposed 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.
I am the cofounder of Riddle’s Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary in the U.S. I am the Vice-Chair of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group, or AsESG, under the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or ICUN.
The AsESG, the specialist group, is a global network of specialists concerned with the study, monitoring, management and conservation of Asian elephants in its 13 range countries. The AsESG provides the best available, scientifically grounded evidence regarding the abundance, distribution and demographic status of Asian elephant populations.
Some facts: There are ten times less Asian elephants than African elephants. All 13 Asian elephant range countries have captive elephant populations. This is not the case with Africa’s 37 range countries.
The vast majority of captive Asian elephants are found in their range countries and are managed by forest department camps, zoos and private owners. In Asia, captive elephants have been managed for thousands of years.
As a professional elephant manager with over four decades of elephant experience, I recognize the value and support the responsible public display of elephants and other animals as a vitally important means of increasing public awareness and ultimately concerns for these animals in the wild.
Such education and resulting conservation-related efforts are necessary to ensure the future survival of wild elephants where the critical issues of habitat, degradation and loss, along with human-elephant conflict and poaching for ivory, threaten the continued existence of wild elephant populations in both Africa and Asia.
Additionally, a very important point is that zoological institutions around the world provide considerable financial support for conservation field work of species they do exhibit, for example, elephants.
With respect to Bill S-15 itself, please note the following serious concerns:
The bill’s preamble statement mentions science establishes that certain animals, particularly elephants and great apes, should not — because of the cruelty it represents — be kept in captivity. This statement is incorrect. There is no unbiased scientific evidence to support it.
The statement also is directly contradicted by the following sentence in the next paragraph: Keeping these animals in captivity is justified in certain circumstances, including when it is in the best interests of their welfare and for the purpose of a scientific research or conservation program.
Additionally, the language in the bill does not make clear how this particular approach is intended to address any underlying animal welfare concerns. This omission is telling, as it seemingly ignores the fact that banning the exhibition of elephants and great apes — both long-lived species — will simply mean moving these animals out of Canada to captive facilities, be they zoos, sanctuaries, safari parks and other countries.
There are already existing and effective regulations, as well as oversight of facilities exhibiting these particular species, under Canada’s accredited zoos and aquariums.
In short, this legislation is unnecessary. Endorsing a ban to exhibit a very select number of popular wildlife species — why elephants? Why not other large hoof stock? Why great apes? Why not all primates? — will not contribute to the welfare of elephants or great apes or to the conservation of the species.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We’ll now go to the last presenter for this panel, Mr. Felts.
Adam Felts, Senior Curator of Animal Care and Director of Animal Wellbeing, SAFE Asian Elephant Program Leader, Columbus Zoo and Aquarium: Good morning, distinguished committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about Bill S-15.
My name is Adam Felts, and I am the Senior Curator of Animal Care and Director of Animal Wellbeing at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. I’m also the program leader for the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, or AZA, Saving Animals From Extinction, or SAFE, Asian elephant program.
I have been working with elephants for 25 years. In my professional experience, elephants are intelligent, adaptable and resilient animals. They can and do thrive under human care. With professional care and social structure, elephants living in managed settings inspire and educate millions of guests who visit accredited institutions each year. We know that when people experience elephants, these encounters create empathy and understanding of the challenges elephants face in their native ranges. This, in turn, can lead to support for our vital conservation efforts and financial support for these programs.
The Columbus Zoo and the SAFE Asian elephant program are leading conservation initiatives for elephants living in Asia. This work ties directly to people visiting elephants in our zoo in Ohio. The Columbus Zoo is funding a five-year International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, Center for Species Survival in the State of Assam in northeastern India.
We just held our multi-country Human Elephant Conflict Guidelines Working Group, which was led by the Columbus Zoo and the SAFE Asian elephant program, to help countries facing the challenges of elephant and human conflicts. This work would not be possible without the support of our millions of visitors.
Recently, the IUCN issued a position statement recognizing the significant contributions that botanic gardens, aquariums and zoos bring to conserving wild animals, fungi and plants. Firstly, modern accredited zoos are conservation organizations working to save animals from extinction. We are deeply committed to that task, and our success relies on the support of our community and other communities across the globe that either engage with accredited zoos or are seeking mutually beneficial ways to co-exist with wildlife.
I applaud and share your concern for animal well-being but disagree that human care of elephants and great apes is inherently cruel. It is not. In fact, it is my professional experience, elephants in reproductively active situations are healthy, active and have greater opportunities to experience overall positive well-being. Imposing a general ban on breeding wildlife contradicts the very goal this bill sets out to accomplish — protecting animals’ well-being and providing for their long-term survival.
Elephants are social animals, and we know from scientific studies that evaluated elephant well-being in zoos that an elephant’s welfare improves when they live in family units with calves. They learn from each other, they share with each other and they grow with each other. Each elephant plays a role in a complex social structure that is based on raising calves together, which results in a healthy and thriving herd.
Removing opportunities for elephants in human care to live and interact as they naturally do does the opposite of ensuring positive animal well-being.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all three of you for your very interesting presentations.
We will now go on to questions, and I will start with the sponsor of the bill, Senator Klyne.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our expert witnesses.
My first question is for Ms. Conley, but I also welcome others to answer if we have time.
I understand the president of the International Elephant Foundation is the executive director of the Fort Worth Zoo, and the vice-president is the elephant manager at African Lion Safari. In 2021, Fort Worth Zoo reportedly cancelled their intended purchase from African Lion Safari of two elephants for a million dollars each in a sale that would have broken up two mother‑daughter pairs who normally stay together for life. This committee has heard evidence from Dr. Keith Lindsay that this separation would cause trauma for these self-aware and highly social and emotional creatures.
African Lion Safari denied that this would have a negative emotional impact in terms of selling the mothers and daughters apart. Does the International Elephant Foundation stand by such transactions and believe they should happen in the future?
Ms. Conley: Thank you for your question, senator.
The International Elephant Foundation does not have any input as to what our board of directors do with their individual herds, but we do support having healthy breeding herds in as many places as possible as a genetic backstop. If it is in the best interests of those specific herds and the species to have that genetic transfer, it is absolutely the best thing to do. I trust the animal care professionals who work with each of those elephants day to day to determine what is in their best interests.
Senator Klyne: I have a question for Ms. Riddle.
This committee has heard unrefuted scientific evidence from Dr. Bob Jacobs that captivity causes brain damage to elephants due to an impoverished environment and chronic stress. Can you please comment on these findings.
Ms. Riddle: Yes, I would say that that is not unbiased scientific evidence. Elephants in Asia certainly have been managed for thousands of years, and there have been no issues there.
Furthermore, in facilities in the Global North, as we call it, zoological facilities and that sort of thing, having reproduction that has occurred with multi-generational herds, I think, totally flies in the face of what those comments are. I do not support those comments, and I do not think that they have any scientific grounding.
Senator Klyne: I have another question for Ms. Riddle.
I understand that you and the co-founder of Riddle’s Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary formerly worked with Ringling Brothers circus. Is this correct, and has there been use of bullhooks or other circus elephant training methods at your elephant facility?
Ms. Riddle: Yes, we did work for a short period of time, many decades ago, for the Ringling Brothers circus, and, yes, we have used all different types of tools that are used professionally in facilities across the world.
Senator Klyne: This question is for the whole panel. If someone wants to offer the first answer, that’s great.
A letter from 20 elephant experts submitted to this committee states:
To date, there has not been a single case of captive elephants boosting conservation or wild populations. On the contrary, wild elephants are still taken out of the wild to boost captive populations that are otherwise unsustainable.
Can you please comment.
Ms. Riddle: I will comment on that from the Asian elephant perspective. That is absolutely incorrect.
Asian elephant countries are not sending elephants out of the country. I believe that in North America, there has not been an import of a wild elephant in decades, so to make that kind of comment is a lot of misinformation.
In 2016, I did a review, along with a colleague from a law enforcement background, on the live trade of Asian elephants within different Asian countries. That was for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. It was thought that elephants were being captured in the wild and being sent to countries such as Thailand or even Nepal to be used for tourism purposes, but we found no evidence that those were wild elephants being captured. They were primarily captive-born elephants in those countries or elephants that were already captive but were out of work that were maybe sent to other countries to basically be able to work.
In terms of the Asian elephant population, that statement is totally incorrect, and it is not based on any kind of fact.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. I have another question for you.
Dr. Keith Lindsay told this committee:
On conservation — despite the many claims made, there is —
The Chair: Senator Klyne, I will put you on second round.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you to all three of you for being here. I’m going to ask you to be concise with your answers to me as well. I really appreciate that. I might get three questions in. It’s difficult. When we have excellent panels like you, we have a lot of questions.
My first question is for Ms. Riddle, since you are a part of the IUCN. The number of Asian elephants has plummeted in the wild, and all species, in fact, face extinction. Consequently, they view the one third of the world population of Asian elephants living in human care as critical to elephant conservation.
Can you give us a very short comment on that, please.
Ms. Riddle: Yes, that is correct. Asia does have a very different situation than Africa in that all 13 of the Asian elephant range countries do have captive populations. Most of those captive elephants are used for conservation purposes — for example, patrolling protected areas or helping to defuse human-elephant conflict situations by chasing wild elephants back to the forest, those sorts of situations.
Elephants are constantly coming into captivity, be it elephant calves caught in a snare or maybe abandoned for some reason by their herds, things along those lines. Captive elephants in Asia are never going to be eliminated, and they do play a significant role because there is, obviously, a lot of interest in trying to see how to reintroduce captive elephants into wild populations. Some countries are working on that, but the main cause of the population’s dwindling is a lack of habitat. It would be far more important to put resources into maintaining habitat, maintaining protection of those habitats, law enforcement and those sorts of things. If you have no elephants to put back into those areas, once you have them protected, then it’s kind of a moot point. Conservation can come to a standstill very quickly.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
My next question is for any one of the three of you. You are obviously aware that African Lion Safari holds 76% of all elephants in Canada. None of their elephants were taken from the wild, as you have already suggested, Ms. Riddle, and almost all of them were born in African Lion Safari. I have visited their place a number of times. I wanted the committee to do that as well, but they didn’t want the information that they could provide us there, so that was turned down.
I have visited there and was struck with what seemed to be a real deep bond between the elephants and their keepers. You are all experts. Can you comment on this? Do elephants develop a special emotional bond with those who care for them? Maybe Ms. Conley, you can comment on that.
Ms. Conley: Thank you, senator. I would say that elephants are one of the most intelligent — if not the most intelligent — animals out there. They definitely feel a connection to those taking care of them. It is one of the things that makes them so flexible as far as being able to thrive in human care. The fact that you can work with an elephant and find ways to communicate and do absolutely amazing things is what has enabled over 5,000 years of history in elephant husbandry with elephants and humans together. We have a tendency to anthropomorphize people and animals together, but with elephants, there absolutely is a strong bond with their keepers.
Senator Plett: My third question and probably my last for first round is to Mr. Felts.
Yesterday we heard from Professor Beaulac, a constitutional lawyer. He told us that the constitutionality of this bill hangs completely on whether holding elephants and great apes in human care meets the threshold of cruelty under the Criminal Code. He said that if it is not animal cruelty, it is not federal, and it is not connected to the requirement of public morality.
Would you agree with the government? I quote from the preamble of the bill:
. . . elephants and great apes, should not, because of the cruelty it represents, be kept in captivity. . . .
Mr. Felts: Thank you. I absolutely do not agree with that statement. I have been working with elephants for 25 years and have experienced elephants all over the country and the world, and I have seen firsthand — one thing is we are the experts in human-managed elephant settings. We have well-being programs in place, and we are assessing our animals all the time. I can wholeheartedly say that elephants thrive in reproductive settings. I have been to African Lion Safari, and it’s one of the best programs — if not the best program — in the world. A lot of it is because they are successful with their breeding programs, and they are focused on positive elephant well-being, which includes a family unit.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. Welcome to our panellists. It’s always pleasant to have people who can bring some facts and knowledge to the table. My question is for Ms. Riddle. You can answer it in French. I should ask it in French, but I have the quote here in English. It is by Dr. Keith Lindsay, who works for the Amboseli Trust for Elephants in Kenya. You are probably familiar with that trust. He said before this committee:
On conservation — despite the many claims made, there is no significant contribution by zoo exhibits to elephant conservation. The key principle in the IUCN ex situ conservation guidelines is that wild animals should be taken into ex situ locations away from their ranges primarily for the purpose of captive breeding and then timely release to the wild. This is not remotely possible for African and Asian elephants in zoos . . . .
— at least in North America —
. . . and it was not the original reason they were taken from the wild, which was for display and entertainment.
I understand that many zoos are now rebranding themselves as doing more conservation and conservationist work. Do you agree with him that there is no significant contribution by bringing elephants from Asia or Africa here?
Ms. Riddle: I disagree with that, and I understand where it’s coming from. One of the main differences between the Asian Elephant Specialist Group and the African Elephant Specialist Group is that African elephants traditionally, in their range countries, have not been captured for captivity and used as they have been in Asia for centuries.
The African group did come out with that statement a number of years ago to say that captive elephants serve no conservation purposes, but that statement now has kind of been overruled by the fact that modern-day zoological institutions around the world — not just in North America, but also in Europe, Australasia and those kinds of places — are very much involved in conservation in financially supporting, as I said in my statement, field projects that involve species that they exhibit. There is a direct connection.
The International Elephant Foundation is made up of zoos that make a financial contribution to the organization to be able to support all the different projects that Ms. Conley has talked about. Zoos, AZA and SAFE, which Mr. Felts talked about, also make financial contributions as well as provide technical support.
To say in a blanket way that elephants in captivity do not support conservation is completely false. I think it completely overlooks the fact that things have really progressed in the last several decades. I have been working with elephants for 44 years, and things have changed dramatically. I think to stay back in the comments that were made 40 or 50 years ago is not to see the progress that has indeed been made in this field of how to connect the captive animal world with the wild animal world, be it elephants or other species. Many other species also benefit from having some of their species in captivity.
It’s not just financial contributions to field projects; it is also research and education. There is a whole long list of things. I completely disagree with Mr. Lindsay’s statements.
Senator Dalphond: Yesterday we had other witnesses who said that, in principle, elephants and great apes should not be kept in zoos, except in certain circumstances for specific exceptions that are provided in this bill. Do you agree with this?
I refer, for example, to Dr. Clément Lanthier from the Wilder Institute, who refers to the fact that in principle, we should ban it except if it meets one of the criteria. Do you agree with this?
Ms. Riddle: Well, I think that in Canada right now, it seems that with the elephants that are still in the country, which is a very small number if you look at the worldwide population, they are in facilities that are already accredited by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, and also come under potential regulations, be it provincial or federal regulations. In the U.S., that’s certainly the case.
If those standards of professionalism are continuously upgraded and enforced, then there is no reason why those elephants need to be banned — not just elephants, but great apes and those sorts of things. Because all something like this does, basically, is to send those animals out to other facilities, potentially having lower standards of management. It does not address the issue of animal welfare, necessarily. If you take away the opportunity — if you take a facility like African Lion Safari and they are longer able to exhibit elephants, will they be interested in supporting conservation projects? Likely not. Now you are taking away another source of support for conservation projects by removing those animals from their care.
I don’t think that this is very helpful. What is always helpful is to look at how we can improve regulations in order to make sure that these facilities fulfill a high level of standards for the management of the animals in their care.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for all three witnesses. I’m not sure who the best person to answer is, so I will let you decide.
What would the process of controlling impregnation to prevent animals from reproducing involve, as far as your organizations and institutions are concerned? Would you have to separate the animals, thereby reducing the amount of space they had and intensifying their captivity, or would you spay or castrate them? Would you castrate the male, but not the female, or would you prevent the female from ovulating? How would it work? That part seems crueller to me than the rest. Can you explain what the process would entail?
Ms. Riddle: Yes, I’d be happy to explain a bit about the process. It’s true that you have to separate males and females to prevent them from reproducing. That would mean breaking up their social circles. It would also be necessary to develop the method, because it’s very difficult to castrate an elephant. It’s an extremely complicated process and does affect the animal’s health. It’s definitely problematic.
For instance, methods could be developed to prevent females from becoming pregnant, and that way, males and females could stay together. It does affect the animal on a social level because they are very social creatures. If you don’t want them to reproduce… If you keep only males with males and females with females, you can prevent reproduction in that sense.
Senator Carignan: It would have an impact on them as well, then?
Ms. Riddle: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Carignan: Would it be worse than captivity?
Ms. Riddle: Yes, and it wouldn’t necessarily be the best thing for them. Separating them like that wouldn’t necessarily be the best option, in terms of their day-to-day well-being. It’s always better to keep males and females together in much more social groupings.
Senator Carignan: Would the other witnesses like to comment?
[English]
Ms. Conley: Yes. The International Elephant Foundation supports good welfare, and one of the best ways to determine whether an animal is displaying good welfare is if they display natural and healthy breeding behaviour. African Lion Safari is an incredible testament to this. Active elephants that are managed actively with hands-on care tend to have better breeding outcomes. Anything that would sever that ability for them is going to harm their welfare. As Ms. Riddle said, methods to prevent breeding, whether it is castration — which can be extremely dangerous and cause injuries to the male elephants — or to separate them, are going to reduce their ability to display those natural behaviours. When it is at all possible, you should encourage breeding.
When you have an opportunity like African Lion Safari managing their herd in such a successful way, to mandate that they stop doing that behaviour is actually a detriment to those individual elephants.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Felts?
[English]
Mr. Felts: I agree with both Ms. Riddle and Ms. Conley. Elephants are experiencing the most positive well-being when they are acting naturally in a herd setting. To stop that is doing the complete opposite. To prevent breeding, to stop the breeding at African Lion Safari is going to be breaking up family groups, separating animals and putting animals in smaller spaces, which is the complete opposite of what positive animal well-being is for elephants specifically.
Senator Batters: Thank you. My first question is for Ms. Riddle. The preamble of Bill S-15 says:
Whereas Parliament is of the view that the science establishes that certain animals, particularly elephants and great apes, should not, because of the cruelty it represents, be kept in captivity;
That’s what it says right now. Do you agree with that preamble?
Ms. Riddle: No, I don’t agree with it. I don’t think that there has been any independent, unbiased scientific research done to establish that conclusively. So, no, I totally disagree with that statement.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
How would you differentiate between conditions of captivity that could be considered cruel and those that are suitable and beneficial for elephants and great apes?
Ms. Riddle: Well, as I mentioned before, the fact that most zoological institutions, especially in North America, Europe and what we would refer to as the Global North, have come to the realization that different species have different requirements and have modified over the years their regulations on how to manage those species and the better circumstances for those species. For example, to keep elephants in social units. Those sorts of things.
Those kinds of comments overlook a lot of what has been done. I have been in this business an awful long time, so I have seen the progress, and I think it totally diminishes the progress that has been made. The fact that there are far fewer zoological institutions today exhibiting animals such as elephants and great apes due to the fact that there is a recognition that some species have specialized requirements that involve a certain amount of input of resources and those sorts of things.
To single out a couple of species like that without taking into consideration all sorts of other species that also have their own sets of needs and why we are just picking elephants and great apes — that does not seem to really make sense. What would make more sense is to look more broadly at how to improve the captive environment for all species regardless whether they are referred to as exotic species — non-native to Canada — or native species to Canada that have to be brought into captivity. You do have species in Canada that are native, but if they have to be brought into captivity for one reason or another, they have some of the same needs as elephants and great apes in terms of how they have to move and things along those lines. They have to be in social groups. You want regulations in your institutions that reflect that you are looking at all species, not just a select few.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
For the two other witnesses, I would appreciate it if you could give me an answer to this one. Some critics have argued that elephants in Canadian zoos are not adapted to the harsh winter conditions of Canada, stating that they must actually be kept indoors and sheltered for much of the winter. Based on your experience and observations, does that claim about winter discomfort of elephants reflect reality? Maybe we’ll start with Mr. Felts.
Mr. Felts: Yes. Actually, African Lion Safari has published papers on the impact of elephants in northern climates; their elephants, specifically. They are very adaptable animals. They can thrive in many different environments, and they can tolerate much colder temperatures than the opinions that are out there say they can. They enjoy playing in the snow. They enjoy going out. Our elephants in Columbus, Ohio, go out most of the winter. It’s an inaccurate statement. We can do elephants well in northern climates, and I think African Lion Safari is a perfect example where it’s done very well.
Senator Batters: Ms. Conley, could you answer the same question, please?
Ms. Conley: Thank you. As Mr. Felts said, elephants are extremely good at thermoregulation. They are one of the more adaptable animals to a variety of climates. We have seen that in many different regions. Even though there are statements by — say — those in opposition to places like African Lion Safari that claim otherwise, the actual research — like the studies the African Lion Safari and others did going back 30 years, probably — has shown that elephants can absolutely thrive in that environment.
That is why they are in managed care. If you just assumed there is some idyllic habitat you can throw them into and have no human intervention, then yes, they may get damaged by snow. That’s why they’re managed at African Lion Safari. That’s why there’s staff to look after their well-being and tailor care to each individual elephant’s need. To assume there should be some sort of parity between wild situations and what is happening in a zoological setting is just illogical. What we need to do is celebrate the fact that having well-managed herds in Canada can and is being done well and can offer the ability for these elephants to thrive. The cold and temperatures in Canada absolutely make no difference.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you for your testimony and for your work — for the care you have brought to the animals you’ve been in contact with.
We’ve heard that in this country, there are places that do not provide proper care — where the status quo is not acceptable. We are hearing from many Canadians that what’s existing now is not working. What happens then is that Canadians will expect parliamentarians to legislate. That may not be the best thing, but it is part of all the things we do in response to Canadians being upset with the status quo. I just want to start by saying that.
I want to come back to the question of the definition of cruelty and how we define that. Do your organizations have a definition of cruelty that you use or that you could share with us so that we could have an understanding around that? We had one witness say to us that captivity, when it impacts behaviour, can then be called cruelty — if it modifies the behaviour of the animal. I wonder if you could comment further on the definition of cruelty and if your organizations have such a thing.
Ms. Conley can start.
Ms. Conley: About the assertion that if captivity impacts behaviour or the choices of an animal then it necessarily means cruelty — that would mean that living in this world is cruel. Right now in Asia, one third of all Asian elephants live in some form of managed care. Does that mean that one third of all Asian elephants are living in cruel situations? Does that mean that the African elephants in different preserves and national parks that have man-made borders and man-made limits on habitat use are also treated cruelly? These are not helpful as far as determining welfare and best management decisions for elephants. We have a world that is industrializing and expanding, and habitats are being lost, destroyed and fractured. Populations are being encapsulated. To think that there is some idyllic wild out there where there are no human decisions that affect an animal’s daily choices is just naive.
To say that any sort of interaction or choices made by man necessarily implies cruelty is not a functional definition and should not be considered for things like this. What we need to do is figure out the best way for these animals to thrive in the situation that’s at hand, and that is about allowing them to display however many natural behaviours they can, like breeding and keeping fit by being able to exercise. It’s also about giving them all the medical treatment and veterinary care they need.
I completely disagree with that assertion of the definition of cruelty.
Senator Clement: Does your organization have a definition?
Ms. Conley: I can ask our board of directors to send it to you.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Ms. Riddle: Our organization does not have a specific definition of cruelty, but you pose an excellent question.
I think that oftentimes the definition of cruelty comes more from an emotional kind of feeling, but it would be something, I think, that we could certainly discuss within our organization so that we could have a better definition that all of our members agree on. What defines cruelty in any given situation, not just with captive elephant populations but potentially with wild elephant populations? What defines cruelty? At what point do you cross the boundary? I think that is a very good question, and I will certainly bring it to our group.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Does Mr. Felts have time to respond?
Mr. Felts: I agree, it’s a good question. We do not have a definition of cruelty, and it’s a great thing to look at. I agree with Ms. Riddle that it’s an emotional thing when that word is used.
One of the things that sets accredited zoos apart from other zoos — and good zoos from bad zoos — is a scientific approach to validate good well-being and good welfare. You will see good and accredited zoos having welfare programs that aren’t necessarily — we’re looking for behaviours, and the whole goal of that is to understand those behaviours so we can then respond to whatever is occurring with that animal. It’s the same with elephants. We want to validate it. We try to remove our emotions.
I appreciate what you said earlier about how we do this because we love the animals and the work we do. I appreciate you saying that. We want what’s best for our animals. We are always striving. One of the things I love about our profession is that we are never happy. We are always evolving and taking the information given to us to better the animal care. It’s a great question.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, we have very little time, so I’m going to give it to the sponsor and critic of the bill. Two minutes each, please.
Senator Klyne: I have a question for Ms. Conley. A 2019 article in The New York Times stated:
The 2012 Seattle Times investigation found that 390 elephants had died in accredited zoos in the previous 50 years, a majority of them from captivity-related injuries and diseases.
Still, the biggest threat by far has proved to be the preternaturally low birth rate of captive elephants. One of the more disturbing manifestations of zoo-elephant psychosis is the high incidence of stillbirths and reproductive disorders among pregnant mothers. Even when births are successful, there are often instances not only of infant mortality but also of calf rejection and infanticide, something almost never witnessed in thousands of studies of wild elephant herds.
The article went on to state that:
. . . in essence, the trend has been that for every new birth in captivity, two elephants have died.
Can you please comment?
Ms. Conley: Absolutely. I am aware of those articles and those claims, but they are not done in a, let’s say, open-minded way. They have been looking at the data from separate areas and lumping it together so as to make it seem like there is a higher death rate and less successful birth rate than is reality.
For example, if you are talking about race relations in the United States, if you talk about the number of lynchings from 1800 to now, it’s going to seem like an extreme amount of lynchings. But if you talk about the number of lynchings from, I don’t know, 1990 to now, you will see that society has progressed quite significantly.
The same goes with elephant reproduction, and elephant care in human care. When you talk about elephant deaths and things like that, it is very situational. In your question you mentioned infanticide. A lot of the situations where that occurred, those situations had less-than-optimal people and programs not doing what was in the best interest of their elephants. When you don’t have a monitored herd or a good birthing plan, you will have catastrophes. That happens in the wild, but you don’t hear about it because we’re not there at every individual birth. We are not there monitoring all of these things.
To lump in 50 years of data for elephants in human care in zoological facilities and claim that’s what everyone should live by now is just not giving an accurate and honest picture of the reproductive gains and viability of elephants in human care.
Senator Plett: Ms. Riddle, one of the sponsor’s first questions to you related to the Ringling Brothers and your past association with them. Some of the speeches we have heard in the Senate supporting Bill S-15 are because they don’t want us to import elephant tusks, which, of course, has nothing to do at all with this bill, and so I find it strange that these things are being used. Your past association with the Ringling Brothers really has nothing to do with this bill.
Ms. Riddle: Exactly.
Senator Plett: And of course, this bill doesn’t speak to circus acts. This is human care.
Tell me, Ms. Riddle, do you support the use of weapons or bullhooks or anything that would in any way injure an elephant in the normal course of the day now and not what Ringling brothers may or may not have done 15 or 20 years ago? How many elephant facilities — and I know African Lion Safari uses a guide, not a bullhook. Can you comment on that, please?
Ms. Riddle: Sure, I’d be happy to. Actually, for almost 20 years, I was a legislative coordinator for the Elephant Managers Association, which addressed a huge number of bills that came up in the U.S. trying to ban all sorts of tools that are used with elephants: the guide, which formerly was called the bullhook, so basically the same instrument with a different name; the use of chains with elephants; all these different kinds of things. Our position was always that there are a number of tools that can be used in managing any species. When you have a specific species like elephants, there are some tools that you’re going to use with that species that you may not use with others. For example, you use chains because a rope is not going to hold an elephant. A chain is going to hold an elephant if you need to restrain it. What is most important is that staff in any facility that manages, for example, elephants are trained in the proper use of these tools.
Senator Plett: I want to get one more question in. Thank you for your answer. I would simply like you to respond yes or no to this question: Would you all support that animals in human care should be in accredited zoos and aquariums as opposed to roadside zoos?
Ms. Riddle: Yes, I think they absolutely should be. Accredited zoos have made huge strides in their regulations and how to manage the animals in their care, so I think there is absolutely no reason not to. I think the use of tools — to add on quickly to that — also has to be clearly explained so the tools are properly used. Even a leash on a dog can be improperly used and can harm a dog. I think it’s taking it out of context to say some tools should be regulated but not others.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you for your testimony. I know that senators have listened to you carefully and appreciated you being here.
For our second panel, senators, we have the Performing Animal Welfare Society, Catherine Doyle, Director of Science, Research and Public Policy. She is on video conference.
From the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Rick Quinn, Veterinarian, Former Board Member.
From the Edmonton Valley Zoo, Gary Dewar, Director, Arts, Heritage and Nature Experiences, City of Edmonton; and Marie-Josée Limoges, Veterinarian.
Welcome to all of you. We will start with Ms. Doyle.
Catherine Doyle, Director of Science, Research and Public Policy, Performing Animal Welfare Society: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. I am the Director of Science, Research and Public Policy for the Performing Animal Welfare Society, also known as PAWS — which, for 40 years, has been providing lifetime care for captive wild animals rescued or retired from circuses, zoos and the exotic pet trade. At our accredited 2,300-acre sanctuary in Northern California, we give a permanent home to elephants, bears, big cats and other wild animals.
I have a Master of Science degree in anthrozoology and have published peer-reviewed papers and book chapters on subjects such as captive wildlife sanctuaries, the effect of captivity on wild animals and captive elephants.
PAWS is a founding member of the Big Cat Sanctuary Alliance, for which I currently serve as vice-president.
As a sanctuary that cares for elephants, PAWS strongly supports Bill S-15. We agree that elephants should not be kept in Canada, due to their complex physical, psychological and social needs, and because of weather conditions.
As a sanctuary that also cares for big cats, I would like to address the need for adding non-native big cats and their hybrids to Bill S-15. In fact, the very biology of these animals makes them inherently vulnerable to poor welfare in captivity.
Tigers, for example, are the largest cat species in the world, with territories that range from 7 to over 1,200 square kilometres. They can travel widely, from 5 to 30 kilometres a day, and as much as 60 kilometres in some cases. Lion home ranges are even larger. Still, we mostly find these big cats in small cages that are a tiny fraction of their natural home ranges.
In captive situations, space limitations and resources dictate the size of big cat enclosures. Zoo standards are based on the limits of their members rather than the biological needs of the animals, yet enclosure size has far-reaching physical and psychological effects for big cats.
A study of caged carnivores found that their wide-ranging lifestyles in the wild, including home range size and distances travelled, were predictors for stereotypic behaviour, such as repeated pacing, and for high infant mortality rates in captivity. These animals show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity, leading the authors to conclude that keeping naturally wide-ranging carnivores should be fundamentally improved or phased out.
Other studies show that captivity has caused physical changes in big cats. These cats have less bone density than do their wild counterparts, likely due to reduced movement and small captive spaces. The skulls and mandibles of captive lions and tigers differ in shape from lions and tigers in the wild, likely related to diet.
All this raises questions about conservation claims made by facilities holding large felids. In fact, no exotic big cat bred in Canada is ever going to be released to the wild because they lack crucial survival skills, and the physical differences brought on by captivity would affect survivorship. Habituation to humans also makes these animals unsuitable for release, as they would be vulnerable to poaching and human-wildlife conflict.
Captive tigers, with the exception of those in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Species Survival Plan Programs, are mostly generic, meaning they are a cross between different subspecies of tigers and therefore have no conservation value. The same is true of hybrids.
Big cats with novel colour traits, such as white lions and white tigers, also serve no conservation purpose. Plus, the inbreeding required to produce these colours is strongly associated with genetic defects and is harmful to animal health and welfare.
While some felid species, such as the cheetah, reproduce poorly in captivity, others, like tigers and lions, will breed in the worst conditions, which is why they are so easily obtained and exploited and even kept as highly dangerous pets. In these cases, big cats suffer due to inadequate space, poor nutrition, impoverished environments, improper social groupings, inbreeding and lack of veterinary care.
PAWS recently took in a confiscated tiger cub with metabolic bone disease, a very painful condition caused by improper nutrition that weakens the bones, causing them to fracture, break and even shatter. This 10-month-old cub was left with multiple bone fractures and deformities that will remain with her for life.
Sanctuaries commonly see this and other serious health conditions in rescued big cats. There is a very strong case for adding non-native big cats and their hybrids to Bill S-15, and I respectfully ask you to please consider this. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Doyle.
Now we will go to Dr. Rick Quinn from the Jane Goodall Institute.
Rick Quinn, Veterinarian, Former Board Member, Jane Goodall Institute of Canada: Honourable senators and colleagues, I’d like to address three major areas.
First, as a veterinarian who has worked with wildlife in Canada, Africa and Indonesia and authored a book on great apes, I hope to connect the dots between legitimate conservation and captive animal welfare work here in Canada and international wildlife conservation efforts.
Secondly, having served on the board of the Jane Goodall Institute, I would like to share Dr. Goodall’s thoughts on shaping such a bill.
Finally, as an academic veterinary specialist who has trained residents, mentored graduate students and, as a retirement project, is currently doing research at Cambridge on wildlife health and conservation, I am well positioned to critically assess conservation research.
No more than 300 Cross River gorillas remain in a tiny area along the border of Cameroon and Nigeria. There are fewer than 6,600 Sumatran orangutans remaining in the wild. Many predict that the Sumatran orangutan may well be the first species of great ape to become extinct, perhaps as early as 2050.
Senators, you may have heard of the Sumatran orangutans at the Toronto Zoo and their work with the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme. I have worked alongside their research team in Indonesia. You may hear of the troop of western lowland gorillas at the Calgary Zoo and their commitment to fund research on Cross River gorillas in Nigeria. Toronto, Calgary and other Canadian leading zoos are breeding endangered Canadian species for reintroduction in Canada. That is conservation. Those are renowned organizations, and that is collaboration.
In November 2020, the Honourable Senator Sinclair introduced Bill S-218, the Jane Goodall Act. The Honourable Senator Klyne built on Bill S-218 and introduced Bill S-241 in March 2022. At the time, Dr. Goodall asked that:
. . . key individuals would sit down and have an open dialogue, where everyone is heard, points of view are respected, feedback is incorporated into the legislation and a solution that works for all key parties is achieved.
She asked that good zoos be recognized for their contribution to conservation.
Bill S-15 would adopt measures to protect elephants and great apes, including the eventual phasing out of captive elephants in Canada, consistent with the Jane Goodall Act. Bill S-15 protects captive wildlife based on Indigenous values and science, including priority concerns with elephants.
The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada endorses Bill S-15 and echoes the call for an amendment package that would add non-native big cats and their hybrids in the bill now under the current framework and the “Noah Clause,” as you’ve heard — a mechanism for the Governor-in-Council to add species in the future, perhaps prioritizing all bears, all native big cats, all non‑human primates, large constrictor snakes, venomous reptiles and crocodilians. I call that package “Jane Lite.”
All scientific research creates knowledge. However, not all research done on wild species in captivity furthers true conservation and needs to be done in unsuitable or questionable climates.
Let’s take a critical look at a study on thermoregulation — body temperatures and how they handle the cold — in Asian elephants at African Lion Safari in the winter. Every author listed was employed by or associated with African Lion Safari. It was funded by African Lion Safari. Institutional review board approval was granted by African Lion Safari. It was published in 2023, after peer review in an industry publication.
Is this part of “the best peer-reviewed research in the world on how elephants cope in cold weather”? And how exactly does that move the needle on elephant conservation? It really doesn’t, and it is misleading to repeatedly make or hear those exaggerated claims.
Finally, this is about more than 30 great apes and 23 elephants and who has visited African Lion Safari — much more. Attitudes and standards change as we learn more about animals under our care. Some captivity is just not okay. Practices — even laws — that were acceptable years ago are inadequate or maybe even harmful today. Please, senators, recognize the changing needs and wishes of Canadian society and protect what is important to us from coast to coast to coast. Bill S-15 speaks about a Canada that leads, exactly what this chamber did with the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act in 2019.
I respectfully ask that, among all these other things, you remember 3 points: One, policy here impacts results everywhere; two, “Jane Lite” is endorsed by all key engaged stakeholders; and three, true conservation science is defined by research that moves the needle.
Thank you for hearing me.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Quinn.
We will now hear from the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Mr. Dewar, I believe you will be speaking.
Gary Dewar, Director, Arts, Heritage and Nature Experiences, City of Edmonton, Edmonton Valley Zoo: Good morning. My name is Gary Dewar, and I lead the dedicated team of professionals at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. I am joined by Dr. M.J. Limoges, our resident veterinarian of 10 years, who is responsible for our animal health team. Dr. Limoges has a masters degree in veterinary science and has been a zoo veterinarian for 25 years. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Edmonton’s Zoo opened in 1959 and continues to undergo an impressive transformation from a storybook-inspired, child‑focused facility to a progressive zoological institution with an increasing focus on conservation, education, research, species survival and preserving biodiversity. This year, we expect to welcome 350,000 visitors.
Our conservation efforts involve showcasing majestic animals at risk of extinction, educating visitors about their plight, and inspiring action to protect animals and their habitats. Over the past 25 years, Edmonton Valley Zoo has placed wildlife conservation at the core of its purpose and operation. A new master plan will be completed in 2024, continuing our transformation and setting a bold direction for the next 15 years.
The Edmonton Valley Zoo is accredited by CAZA and is an institutional member of WAZA. CAZA accreditation is recognized at many levels of government in Canada as the gold standard in animal care and safety, and supports our annual permit application with the Province of Alberta.
I want to provide clarity about the outstanding care that Lucy, the Asian elephant, receives in Edmonton. Lucy was orphaned in Sri Lanka, and in 1977 was brought to Edmonton at the age of two. As required by CAZA, because of her sole status, our zoo arranges an annual independent, comprehensive review of Lucy’s health. Links to all of these assessments are included in our position statement that has been shared with you.
Our zoo’s resident veterinarian, along with the majority of independent experts who have assessed Lucy, agree that the best place for her is here in Edmonton where she is comfortable, calm and well cared for. The findings have been consistent, and their collective medical evidence concludes Lucy’s respiratory issue is a significant challenge and that the process of moving her would endanger her life.
In early 2021, Dr. Rick Quinn from the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada conducted a thorough review of Lucy’s history and past independent expert medical evaluations. The institute concluded that each veterinarian involved in Lucy’s evaluations was well qualified to provide their opinion, and they agreed that Lucy should remain at the zoo.
Edmonton City Council is supporting the zoo with a $36 million investment for renewal and enhancement of aging infrastructure. Portions of this funding will give Lucy increased access to space, additional enrichments and much more comfort as she ages. While Lucy will be the last elephant at the Edmonton Valley Zoo, it is important that other accredited institutions be able to house elephants to continue their critical research and conservation work.
My colleagues from CAZA joined you at the April 11 Senate meeting and expressed support for animal welfare legislation to further safeguard the well-being of animals in human care but articulated a few concerns that Edmonton Valley Zoo echoes: The preamble to Bill S-15 makes unsubstantiated claims related to public opinion. The statement that elephants and great apes in captivity represent cruelty is not supported by sound scientific evidence. In Canada, endangered species, including elephants and great apes, are already federally regulated by Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC. We believe the exceptions identified for holding animals are reasonable and are very much in line with CAZA’s accreditation program. The management and enforcement approach for such exceptions in the bill, however, is unclear. Speaking as an institution that is held accountable to CAZA’s rigorous accreditation standards, I can assure you that CAZA’s standards are best practice and respectfully ask that accredited members of CAZA be recognized as animal welfare organizations and be exempted from the limitations of Bill S-15.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate. We welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you. We now go to questions from senators, starting with the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Klyne: Thank you, chair. My first question for Dr. Quinn.
Dr. Quinn, we have heard from Dr. Mary Lee Jensvold of the Fauna Foundation that Bill S-15 would prevent great apes from being imported into Canada at roadside zoos and as pets. Can you please comment on the importance of protecting great apes from these circumstances?
Dr. Quinn: Thank you, Senator Klyne.
I have heard all the committee presentations and many of the other speeches today on this issue, but what is important is to recognize that when we are currently looking at a limited number of facilities and a limited number of great apes, it might seem trivial to be trying to protect them. That can change at any time. Animals can be brought in. A CITES permit means nothing other than an endangered species. It’s on the list, so they need a permit, but it says nothing about the well-being of the animal or the appropriateness of where they are going. It literally is paperwork. That paperwork can allow animals to end up in bad situations.
Do we have that on the ground now? No. The presenters that you heard last evening and earlier clearly have indicated that they are in pretty good shape. But a year ago, for example, if we were talking about orangutans at the Toronto Zoo, we would be talking primarily about an indoor display. Now they have a great facility. It is beautiful. I have been there.
So that can change, and I think there is merit in all that.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Ms. Doyle, two out of four Canadian zoos with elephants have committed to phasing out captivity as Toronto and Calgary have previously done. In fact, Granby Zoo has committed to relocating their three elephants to a sanctuary.
Depending on individual assessments of elephants’ ability to travel and considering the importance of keeping family members together, do you see the relocation of elephants from Canada to sanctuaries in warmer climates as a positive path for Canada’s elephants in the future?
Ms. Doyle: A simple answer to that would be, yes it would be a positive development for Canada’s elephants going into warmer climates, for sure. Actually, what’s provided at sanctuaries is a large amount of space, autonomy for the animals and the promotion of natural behaviours in these spaces.
It is also our management of the elephants. No AZA facilities would be using bullhooks because that is prohibited now. At The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee and at PAWS, we use protected contact management which does not use bullhooks. It is positive reinforcement training. It is the use of food rewards, and the elephant has a choice. The elephant can leave the training at any time. There is always a protective barrier, of course, between the caregiver and the elephant, protecting both of them.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Mr. Dewar, AZA has committed to phasing out the use of bullhooks on elephants, whereas CAZA continues to permit the use of these implements or facsimiles thereof. Can you please comment on this discrepancy?
Mr. Dewar: Certainly. As one of the speakers mentioned in the first panel, we use what they call aids. They were previously referred to as bullhooks. What has been described by many is an instrument that is very different. In our case, it’s a very small aid with a tapered hook at the end. In no way does it cause any cruelty or harm. Our elephant is managed in a free contact, unlike AZA facilities. We are not an AZA facility.
Our management certainly involves very much the use of that tool with our staff being trained in its use. It certainly serves as a guide and a training instrument, but in no way is it ever used to inflict harm in any way. We use positive reinforcement and our program is entirely based on choice. Lucy has the choice to do what she pleases to do when she pleases to do it.
Senator Klyne: Thanks. I understand that and I can appreciate that as well. Just in reference to other CAZA zoos which have had some elephants for a time period, and maybe we’re introduced to the bullhooks, later on, another facsimile thereof would probably be conditioning. They would see that as probably something that they would fear because of the pain they were introduced to with the bullhook. Would you agree that some conditioning might be taking place there?
Mr. Dewar: The use of that aid has evolved over time. Lucy, as I mentioned, has been at our zoo for 47 years. Our industry’s best practices and knowledge has changed since then. Our use of that tool and even the tool itself has changed dramatically. I was not around at the time that tool was being used perhaps differently.
I expect that its use would have been different then and there could be some residual effects of when an animal sees such an instrument, but it is not the same instrument as it was then and not being used in any way that it was at that time.
Again, I can’t speak specifically about how it would impact her now, but certainly our approach is entirely based on positive reinforcement. The aid itself is carried in their back. They don’t actually even hold it in their hand, and it is never used as a threatening tool. We use the positive reinforcement approach to training and guidance.
Senator Plett: My questions, at least the first few, are for Dr. Quinn. Dr. Quinn, can you tell me where in Bill S-15 it mentions the phasing out of elephants in human care?
Dr. Quinn: I am not a lawyer, but by inference, my understanding is that if Bill S-15 were passed and the rules on non-reproduction and introduction with a purpose and with the major zoos giving up on — I see that as phasing out.
Senator Plett: You see that as phasing out but not phasing out great apes when it is exactly the same for both great apes and elephants.
Dr. Quinn: Respectfully, senator —
Senator Plett: No, you answered the question. Please let me go to the next one.
You mentioned that the study of thermoregulation of elephants done by African Lion Safari was peer reviewed. It is an institute that you refused to visit, as does most of this committee for some reason or another. They don’t want to be confused by the facts.
Can you tell us whether that study passed or failed that peer review?
Dr. Quinn: My assumption in the fact that it was published means that it was passed. My point is not that it was —
Senator Plett: So it passed. Thank you very much.
Dr. Quinn, when she visited us here in the Senate, Dr. Goodall talked about how rats are being trained and used to detect landmines. These rats are kept in captivity and are leashed when they are looking for landmines. Is this humane treatment of animals? How does this not constitute cruelty to animals under the world view promoted by the Jane Goodall Institute?
Dr. Quinn: I’m happy to bring that up at a different time, but I don’t think it has much to do with Bill S-15, and respectfully, I can’t speak for what Jane Goodall says.
Senator Plett: Well, you know, neither does importing of elephant tusks to Canada have anything to do with Bill S-15. I asked you a question. Do you not agree that this would constitute cruelty to animals? That’s what this bill is about. Yes, sir, that is exactly what this bill is about. The preamble of the bill talks about cruelty to animals. Is having rats on a leash detecting landmines cruelty to animals, in your opinion?
Dr. Quinn: Madam Chair I’m not able to answer that question with just a yes or no answer. I’m not sure where we go from here. Thank you.
Senator Plett: That’s entirely unacceptable, Madam Chair. Dr. Quinn, Dr. Goodall is a current and founding board member of the Nonhuman Rights Project, which is working to achieve legal rights for animals. The project is an American non-profit animal rights organization seeking to change the legal status of at least some non-human animals from that of property to that of persons with the goal of securing rights to bodily liberty and integrity. Today we are talking about elephants and great apes. Where does this agenda end? Do you believe, Dr. Quinn, that all animals should hold non-human rights?
Dr. Quinn: Again, Madam Chair, I do not see the link to Bill S-15 and don’t think it’s appropriate that I speak for Dr. Goodall and answer that question.
Senator Plett: You are here speaking for Dr. Goodall, sir.
Dr. Quinn: No, I’m not. I will answer that. I am here representing the views of the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada on Bill S-15, and as my presentation supported, we are entirely supportive of that, as is Dr. Goodall. As recently as a week ago, we talked about it in person.
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, this is the first witness in these committee hearings that is refusing to answer questions that are directly related to when we are talking about cruelty to animals, and you are allowing our witness —
The Chair: Yes, I am allowing it.
Senator Plett: I have no more questions for this witness, then, Madam Chair. That is unacceptable that you are allowing —
The Chair: If he says he cannot answer them, I’m not forcing him.
Senator Plett: He refused to answer. [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: That’s fine.
Senator Plett: I asked for an opinion.
The Chair: Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Thank you. First of all, I have to say that when you are here representing the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada — and we were told in planning for these meetings that someone from your institute wasn’t able to testify before certain dates to make sure that the relevant person would be available, and I actually thought maybe it might be Jane Goodall herself, but it is not. It is you. I note that on the agenda it indicates you are a former board member and now today you come here and say you can’t speak for Dr. Goodall and won’t speak for Dr. Goodall. I find that unfortunate because that’s actually whom I think we wanted to hear from on that.
My first question will be for the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Do you have great apes and elephants in your zoos? And if you do, do you believe that you are practising cruelty by keeping those animals in your zoos?
Mr. Dewar: Gary Dewar here, Director of Edmonton Valley Zoo. We do not have great apes in our collection, but we do have a lone elephant, Lucy, that I spoke about before.
Certainly, opinions about this are based on emotion and misinformation. It’s been suggested earlier that there is no credible, scientific information that captivity equals cruelty. We are fundamentally opposed to the notion that elephants should not be in human care or that it represents cruelty. The idea that elephants are not or cannot thrive in zoos is, in my mind, an outdated and biased perspective.
Having elephants in human care is a critical element of our collective conservation efforts to protect the species breeding, research and education. Currently, one third of the entire Asian elephant population is held in human care. The loss of the availability for these elephants to reproduce and contribute to genetic diversity of population would be detrimental to our global conservation efforts.
There is just a lot to be learned from any living animal regardless of its circumstances. I see that day in, day out with folks that engage with Lucy here at Edmonton Valley Zoo. Seeing her in the flesh can give a greater appreciation for them.
Our education program, for instance, which reaches thousands of students and patrons every year, focuses on why the species is in danger, their habitat loss, what the public can do to support conservation and the survival of the species. That’s resulted in more important fundraising for organizations like the International Elephant Foundation who supports their work in protecting elephants. That would be my response.
Senator Batters: I appreciate that.
Also, Mr. Dewar, you were telling us about how these guides you described are much different than the previous bullhook that we have heard about. Can you actually give us some examples of size, what it looks like and what the differences are? We have had many people who have tried to equate the two and confuse the issues, so I would like to hear from you what the actual differences are between the two — size, what the type is, specific characteristics of it — if you can provide us with some more examples.
Mr. Dewar: I would appreciate the opportunity to do so. In fact, I don’t have a picture of one here. I will certainly follow up and share some details and photos of the aid that we use here. There has been this falsely articulated idea of what one is — that it is five feet long, thick and has a big sharp hook on the end. In fact, the aid that our keepers use is about two feet long, about half an inch in thickness and has a small tapered end. Our keepers don’t actually have it in their hands when they are utilizing it. It is tucked into the back of their belt.
They use hands more as a guide or aid when Lucy has to be moved to a certain area, say. They don’t actually use a bullhook or an aid for that. They use touch; they touch certain parts of her body to generate certain movements. As I say, it is all based on positive reinforcement. She has the utmost choice in where she goes and when she goes.
I hope that helps. But I will follow up by providing more details and photos of the aid that we use.
Senator Batters: Thank you. With dimensions, also.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, again, to the members of the panel. I’ll try to be maybe less offensive than previous questioners, for which I apologize.
My question is for Mrs. Doyle. You are in charge of a sanctuary. We are told that, for example, elephants that are in a certain park here in Ontario can enjoy the benefits of 200 acres of land and can play in the snow; apparently, they enjoy playing in the snow. So what will be the difference in shipping them to your sanctuary? Why would they be in a better place in your sanctuary than African Lion Safari, for example?
Ms. Doyle: When people are talking about 200 acres for the elephants — personally, I have not visited the facility, but I can’t imagine that the elephants have the full run of that. The elephants are managed there, of course, for various reasons. One would be to separate males from females to avoid inbreeding and things like that.
The difference would be — again, at our sanctuary — and I think this is highly important — is the management issue. We also offer a large amount of space, the elephants have autonomy and we give them a lot of respect and dignity.
But in this day and age, I can’t believe anyone is defending the use of the bullhook anymore. I really can’t. It’s an archaic device. I’m out of town right now, and if I had tried to bring a bullhook with me on the plane, I would have had to check it because it is considered to be a weapon. Otherwise, I could show you one right now.
Sure, there is a combination. There is some positive reinforcement used, but a study shows the transition from free contact using a bullhook to protected contact. In fact, the keepers in that situation continued to use the bullhook more than they used positive reinforcement.
Senator Dalphond: I have to interrupt you, sorry, because time is running out, and I don’t have that much time.
The concept of this bill is based on the fact that captivity is not leading to the most suitable environment for big apes and elephants. Do you agree with that? If so, why?
Ms. Doyle: There has been a lot of talk about the cruelty question. As a trained anthrozoologist, we look at the animals’ point of view on issues. At our sanctuary, when you see a tiger or elephant looking out past the fencing or caging, they know there is a world out there. They know it is somewhere they cannot get to. For any animal to be constrained like that and to be caged is really what constitutes the cruelty there.
The difference now with the sanctuary, of course, is the way we are using captivity. We are not using it to display animals or to make them ambassadors. In our case, it is to protect these animals and to provide them with, like I said, a more dignified life with the ability to engage in more natural behaviours. It is really just the freedom to be themselves and find themselves again.
Senator Dalphond: Dr. Quinn, it is the same questions to you, based on your experience. Do you consider that animals in captivity can be described as being in a situation where their well-being is not jeopardized?
Dr. Quinn: Thank you, senator, for your question.
It is not a one-size-fits-all scenario. You’ll find experts, as we are hearing, who will give you one opinion and 180 degrees around the corner is the opposite opinion. My experience has been, when that happens, we go back to first principles and common sense. Picture a sheep. Can a sheep be happy in an enclosed field, grazing? Yes, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine how a tiger, a mountain lion or a chimpanzee would have entirely different needs. Can they be kept in confinement and in captivity?
There have to be good reasons, and when they are there, we have to ensure that standards, like my colleagues at the Edmonton Zoo, are upheld and that they care. But there has to be a good reason, and that reason would have to be either for that animal’s interest — and I’m not sure if people realize that means they have a certain kind of joint problem or are missing a tusk or something and they can’t protect themselves in the wild, or they came from a bad situation.
Are there examples of where that’s absolutely in the animals’ best interest? For sure, so it is not a one-size-fits-all.
I know that’s not easy when you are drafting legislation, but from an animal welfare perspective and as a veterinarian with way too many years to admit, in some cases, it is okay. In others, it’s clearly not.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Dr. Quinn. I was reading about the Jane Goodall Institute and Ms. Goodall. I saw that she conducted her research at Gombe Stream National Park, in Tanzania. It’s a place I’d like to visit. I saw that you can pay US$118 to enter the park. You can camp there and even stay in Jane Goodall’s lodgings. For $35 a person, you can spend a night in Ms. Goodall’s quarters.
Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction? You can take photos, and it says that, when taking photos, you shouldn’t stand next to an ape for more than an hour, and it costs $23. If you are taking professional photos, it costs $214, but you’re allowed to stay for two and a half hours.
Isn’t it a contradiction to say that you can’t buy a ticket to see apes in a reserve or park in Canada, when the very place where Ms. Goodall did her research is a park you have to pay to enter and can even camp in?
[English]
Dr. Quinn: I’m very happy to answer your question. If your question is about paying money to stay somewhere, I can assure you that Dr. Goodall doesn’t receive any of that income. It would go to support her research and so on.
If your question is about access, then I would say, sadly, it’s probably not the Tanzanian population that is going to visit. It would be the Europeans, the North Americans and so on that are going to visit.
Why are they going to visit? There are many reasons. The fact that they can pay to visit — which is what, I think, you’re getting at — then why shouldn’t somebody be able to pay to visit the Assiniboine Park and Zoo or the Zoo de Granby?
I think it’s not so much about the experience of the person, because research has shown that it makes very little difference long term to the behaviour of that human and what they think about conservation down the road. That’s not my opinion; that’s the opinion of others who know what they’re doing.
The second thing is that if we consider it from the animal’s point of view — and I haven’t been to Gombe Stream National Park, but I’ve been to others in the region, and you just can’t compare. One of the dangers of going and spending however much it is, is that you may not see them at all. You may not see them at all, because there are so many places they can go on any given day, you may not be lucky enough to get to view their behaviour. So it’s natural, and you are seeing them in a very different setting.
From the perspective of the great ape or, in that case, the chimpanzee or the baboon, at Gombe there are minimal restrictions there, for sure.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I understand. I’ve been to Kruger National Park, and I saw the big five. I was really happy, but I can understand that you don’t necessarily see everything.
However, it seems from visitors’ comments that they’re able to get quite close to the chimpanzees in the park. They go on treks and stay very close to the chimpanzees. It’s almost certain that you’ll see them and have a chance to be close to them, and it doesn’t seem to be a real issue.
[English]
Dr. Quinn: Well, to be honest, no matter which great ape viewing or ecotourism — and I’ve brought many people to many different places in Africa — there are distances that you need to keep away if you have a cold, or if you are ill. You can’t eat food in front of them. You can’t bring sticks. There are distances that you have to keep to protect the animals. It’s more about the animals than the people.
It is sad that we can’t, in this day and age, develop a replacement for physically being able to get away from the whole entertainment question and actually see them.
When I was in Central African Republic, a group from the World Wildlife Fund, or WWF, was actually setting out camera systems in the middle of this by-place where all these elephants go so that they could capture the IMAX-type film so people — like my grandchildren — could see those and not have to physically see an elephant, and it’s equally impressive.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Quinn.
Senator Sorensen: I want to say that I appreciate you all being here, and I will add that I appreciate your time and respect your expertise and, therefore, how you choose to answer questions or not.
Dr. Quinn, the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada has called for this bill to be strengthened by adding non-native big cats and the “Noah Clause” so that the federal cabinet will be able to protect additional species like bears, monkeys and dangerous reptiles by executive order.
Can you please tell us why you see these amendments as important?
Dr. Quinn: Thank you. I’m very glad you asked the question.
If we look at it historically, we’ve gone from being excited — as was the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada and Jane Goodall herself — at having over 800 species included in the legislation, and then to suddenly have it shift to two species — and an important two, no question — but two, it seemed like we were missing an opportunity.
Again, aside from the experts and everybody’s opinions, if we meet in the middle, and common sense prevails, if we’re going through all of this, we could set up a system where immediately you could have the next biggest problem on the list.
When we sat down together as an institute and facilitated bridge building — which is ironic for what just transpired — we are bridge builders — there were no issues with that. That was an easy sell, quote/unquote.
Why wouldn’t we set in motion now a mechanism where the next biggest problem could be snuck under the same legislation with an opportunity to add species, because who knows what the science will show five years from now? It made sense.
Again, it was a question of incremental improvement. How do we get things better bit-by-bit?
We decided together — not just the Jane Goodall Institute Canada — but all those people who wished to be there — and there were some who were invited choose to attend or comment or get their act together — came up with that list, and that’s why we support that.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
My next question is for Mr. Dewar.
Bill S-15 would prohibit the use of elephants for rides and in performances for entertainment. However, CAZA has opposed the bill. In your view, should the use of elephants in rides and in performances for entertainment remain legal in Canada?
As a second part of the question, back to the bullhook conversation, you gave us a description — I’d have to really see a bullhook, and I’m sorry nobody had one with them — but my question is, what is the small tapered edge for?
Mr. Dewar: The first question was with respect to entertainment. I can assure you that it’s a CAZA standard that forbids the opportunity to offer elephant rides and things of that nature for entertainment purposes. That is outlawed. There were changes made over the years, and certainly that is the case in our institution. It’s also the case at African Lion Safari. The use of elephants for entertainment purposes is forbidden.
In our case, just to be clear, Lucy is in what we’re referring to as a state of retirement. There was a time when she would participate in scheduled animal talks, where we would bring in program participants — our guests — and they would get an opportunity for a demonstration and a talk with her keepers. We discontinued that a few years ago, allowing her more choice. Her schedule is her own. I mentioned that before.
Just back to the subject, then, of those aids, guides, or what you’ve referred to as bullhooks, as I say, our keepers have them on their bodies. They do not hold them in their hands and walk around with them. My office overlooks an open area of the zoo here, and I see the keepers taking her on long walks on a daily basis, 365 days of the year. They never have the bullhooks in their hands. It’s on their backs.
There is a small taper — I’m going to follow up. I actually tried to run and grab one, but they’re not going to get it to me on time, because I’m probably about 200 metres away from them. I could have shown it, but I will certainly follow up.
It certainly is not used in the manner that folks would lead you to believe.
Senator Tannas: I wonder, Dr. Quinn and anybody else, about this idea of including big cats in this particular bill. My concern is that there is no plan that’s been articulated, no anticipation of what happens or what the potential consequences would be for the thousands of animals that might be captured in adding big cats.
It’s a problem for sure. I raised it yesterday with the folks from the big zoos, and yes, somebody ought to come up with a plan because everybody can see it could turn into a calamity and alarm and horrify the very section of the public who is all for this bill.
Why would we slip this into the bill, as you said, when there is no plan? Whatever plan there should be, needs to be developed by somebody — not the government. They don’t know anything about this. They’ll fund it maybe. There probably is some required funding.
This changes everything in terms of this bill, which is a pretty low-maintenance bill, I think you’d have to admit, based on everything. The government really doesn’t have to do anything. It has a lot of symbolism to it, and we’re talking about adding big cats, which could potentially be a catastrophe. Do you want to comment on that?
Dr. Quinn: I’d love to. First, thanks for your sensitivity and for thinking beyond what Bill S-15 might enact.
I suppose in my mind, I cleave two separate issues. One is, how do we stop the problem from becoming worse? Second, how do we deal with a problem that we’ve already allowed to create? Not “we” as in this room. I do see them as separate but linked, and I would not let one stop me from proceeding with the other.
The second comment I would make would be that in terms of an impending catastrophe, worst-case scenario, senator, is they could remain with the status quo, which is no different than if we all go home today and do nothing.
I do think it’s forward thinking to consider it, but I think if we are collectively enacting legislation, I would imagine there could be a way that we could facilitate these animals either being moved — because you’re right, they all can’t go to the Toronto Zoo or the Granby Zoo or whatever. Nor does that mean that we condemn future generations because we have to deal with the population at hand.
So I don’t have the answer. I did hear the question yesterday too — I’m impressed that you would think ahead, which is great. If we can put the Mars lander on Mars, we can figure out how to deal with a finite number of animals that, again, if we did nothing, they would still be in those circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you. For my questions, I would like you to finish what you wanted to say when Senator Plett was asking you questions. Can you finish what you wanted to say on apes, if you remember?
Dr. Quinn: Thank you for the opportunity. I wouldn’t do it justice. When I finally got my heart rate down, my memory was gone.
The Chair: I’m sorry.
Dr. Quinn: It’s okay, but thank you.
Ms. Doyle: Could I add something about big cats? Actually, there would be a plan because of the prohibiting breeding aspect. That means, really, in the next 10 to 15 years, you are down to a very small population if you stop breeding now. By about 20 years, you will be done.
I don’t know how much time I have, but also, we passed the Big Cat Public Safety Act in the United States, which prohibits private ownership of big cats. Part of that was owners were grandfathered in, but they had to register their animals. Those who did not register are in violation of the law and, therefore, could have their animals confiscated.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you to all the presenters for being here. I really appreciate you all giving your time. Thank you very much.
Senators, I have one thing I have to tell you all. Next week will be clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, so if you have any amendments, please contact the law clerk. I know you all know that, but make sure you contact the law clerk to aid you with any amendments you may want.
Thank you very much, senators. See you next Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)