Fisheries Committee on March 18th, 2019

[The Chair, Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, February 1, 2019, Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), I'd like to welcome everybody here this afternoon, especially our guests: the Honourable Murray Sinclair, senator; Elizabeth May from Saanich—Gulf Islands; and, by video conference, Dr. Ingrid Visser, founder and principal scientist, Orca Research Trust.

We'll start off with our presentations very shortly. I'd like to recognize Mr. Gord Johns as a new member of the committee.

I thank Mr. Donnelly for his time and experience that he's shared with us at this committee.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your giving me the floor, just momentarily, to thank members of the fisheries committee. For me it's been nine years of a lot of work. I've enjoyed working at this committee with all colleagues. I think we've looked at, reviewed and passed some good reports over the years—for me, three Parliaments. I am looking forward to the work continuing. I know we're looking at Bill S-203 today. Hopefully, that will move along quickly.

I'm turning it over to my colleague Mr. Gord Johns, member of Parliament. He's the new critic for fisheries and oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for the New Democrats. I wish him well. I will watch from the sidelines.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

We'll start off now with our presentations.

I'll start with Ms. May. I know you're sharing your time with Dr. Visser.

[Blaine Calkins, Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you just remind the committee of the rules for quorum, please?

[The Chair]

Yes. The rules are:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence published when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and one (1) member of the government.

[Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair]

Thank you for pointing that out.

Ms. May, when you're ready, between the two of you, you have seven minutes or less, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to extend congratulations to my friend and fellow Vancouver Islander Gord Johns for his new position within the New Democratic Party.

And from the bottom of my heart I thank Fin Donnelly for his work with us on getting this bill to this point.

I'd be very remiss if I did not extend thanks to retired senator Wilfred Moore, who is sitting right there and who brought this bill forward and introduced it on December 8, 2015. It's been quite a struggle.

To my esteemed colleague Judge Murray Sinclair, it's an honour to sit with you.

I also find it something of an irony that, as I sit here now, in the House we are extending messages of condolences and solidarity with the people of New Zealand after the brutal shootings in the mosques. Dr. Visser is actually in New Zealand.

Although this bill is one of the most important things I've ever worked on in the last eight years that I've been a member of Parliament, I have a role, as Leader of the Green Party, to rush back to the House to speak in rotation, so I will be very brief, recognizing that I am splitting my time with Dr. Visser.

I just want to share this with the committee as quickly as I can. It's been more than three years since this bill was introduced in the Senate. It finally passed third reading on October 23 of last year. In that period of time, it's hard to think of another bill that started in the Senate that has ever had as much review. It held 17 different committee meetings; more than 40 witnesses were heard. The bill has been very thoroughly studied, and so my plea may sound, I suppose, not unusual at this stage after a bill has been locked up for so very long in the Senate and finally made it to the House. I have to say it's been an enormous honour that Senator Moore asked me to co-sponsor this bill at the outset.

But now, I think the time for studying it is over. The time for passing it is now. If we were to make a single amendment, no matter how friendly or well intentioned, it would have the effect of killing this bill. Tens of thousands of Canadians want this bill passed. We hear from them in our constituency offices. We know many of them are children.

We want to see this bill passed because the science is on our side. At this point, we'll speak to the science.

Dr. Ingrid Visser, I could take the whole time I have available to both of us just to talk about your qualifications as an esteemed, internationally renowned scientist who understands the nature of cetaceans and what captivity does to them.

I'd like, with your permission, Mr. Chair, now to turn the floor back to New Zealand and our colleague Dr. Ingrid Visser.

[Dr. Ingrid Visser, Founder and Principal Scientist, Orca Research Trust, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everybody.

I want to extend a thank you to all, for giving me the opportunity to assist you in your decision-making process for this timely and relevant bill. Thank you for the kind words.

I just wanted to point out that I am a scientist specializing in the study of cetaceans, and I definitely support this bill. I have a Ph.D. studying free-ranging orcas, but I've also been studying cetaceans for over two decades. Part of that has involved looking at them in the wild and in captivity. I've visited 35 different captive facilities in 16 different countries, both facilities in Canada and also a number in China and other areas. I have observed 13 species in captivity and 48 different species of whales, dolphins and porpoises in the wild. I've published 27 scientific articles, and those scientific articles have been cited over 800 times, with the top five articles being cited over 50 times.

The captivity industry in Canada is, as I understand it, self-regulating. Although in June 2015 I was invited by your ministry, along with Rob Laidlaw from Zoocheck, to provide input with respect to the formulation of standards for care for marine mammals in your country—and a number of the suggestions that I contributed were included—to my knowledge, none of those have actually been implemented by Marineland Canada.

It is my understanding that these standards are at the whim of the animal care committee, and that as of the 28 June this year, the OSPCA will no longer be enforcing animal welfare at zoos or aquariums in Canada. This indicates to me that there is a real need for federal legislation to ban the keeping of these animals.

I would like to refer you all to the submission that I made to your Senate, when this bill was before them, as it contains a range of information that remains pertinent to the discussion. However, I would like to quote briefly from it. This bill clearly allows for research, yet the industry continues to try, and I will quote here, to use the excuse of research benefiting conservation as an attempt to muddy the waters.

This is the quote:

Scientists, myself included, generally concede that in the past, there has been some research done on captive cetaceans that has helped us better understand their wild conspecifics. However, ethically, today's research should only be conducted in facilities such as natural seaside sanctuaries or out in the open with wild animals. These will provide humane housing and husbandry conditions that better meet the needs of these animals. Such facilities would rationally also provide better data—

That's the end of the quote, but I'd like to emphasize here that this also means it would provide better opportunities for conservation, so I believe that their argument is actually null and void.

Lastly, I'd like to note that the Vancouver Aquarium used to have orcas. They no longer do. Likewise, they used to have belugas, false killer whales and harbour porpoises, and no longer do. Yet despite these species no longer being part of their aquarium, their business model continued, and some might argue that it has actually improved. I therefore can't see how this would be any different for them, should this bill be passed in the same form, at Marineland Canada. For these and the other reasons I have outlined in my submission, I respectfully request that you endorse the passing of this bill.

I would welcome any questions that you'd like to put forward to me.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Dr. Visser.

We'll now go to witnesses in person.

The Honourable Murray Sinclair, you have the floor for seven minutes or less, please.

[Murray Sinclair, Senator, Manitoba, ISG]

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Visser, for that. You have filled in a number of details.

I also want to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to be here to speak to this bill, which I took over sponsorship of after it outlived the career of Senator Moore, who retired while it was still in second reading.

We have essentially developed a bill in the Senate, which is an amendment to the Criminal Code, that makes captivity of cetaceans a criminal offence. If you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that there were some consequential amendments that had to be made such as those relating to exemptions as well as those relating to amendments to the Fisheries Act, all of which are set out in the bill.

The bill is a simple and straightforward one. It works from the presumption that placing these beautiful creatures into the kinds of pens that they have been kept in is inherently cruel and that, therefore, the Criminal Code amendments relating to cruelty to animals should be made applicable.

There are a number of consequential amendments that relate to that, such as the ban on the breeding of the animals, a ban on the import and export of parts of animals and the animals themselves, but essentially the bill is a straightforward Criminal Code amendment provision, and I think it very clearly addresses that.

I also want to just point out that the indictable offence and summary conviction offence penalties that are in place are in keeping with the Fisheries Act itself when it comes to the amounts of fines that can be imposed and the potential term of incarceration that can be imposed for an alternative to the fine, so I don't see that as being particularly out of line.

In addition to that, I also want to comment on correspondence that's been shared with members of the committee, I believe—it has certainly been shared with me—relating to concerns about the potential charging of Marineland, which is the only company in Canada that continues to deal with these animals in this way, that they might be subject to prosecution because some of the belugas that are in captivity right now are pregnant and may give birth afterwards.

The reality is that a pregnant beluga today would give birth after the bill is enacted, and Marineland would still be protected, because the beluga that is born would be part of the beluga that is inherently grandfathered into the legislation, if that is the right word for a pregnant beluga, but the reality is also that no one is going to prosecute someone who legally has the mother that gives birth to the whale after the legislation has been enacted or while the legislation is being enacted.

Those provisions that relate to the impregnating of whales will be for those that are impregnated following the passage of the legislation. I think we need to recognize that will be a particular offence that will be caught by the legislation.

The other question that has been raised has been: How does this bill work in conjunction with Bill C-68, which has already been passed by the House? Allow me to point out to you that Bill C-68 makes it an offence under the Fisheries Act to fish for cetaceans, but it doesn't make it an offence to breed them, and it doesn't make it an offence to sell the embryos or the body parts. It also doesn't make it an offence to trade internationally in the various parts of the animals. Those are amendments that are contained in Bill S-203, so there is a very distinct and clear separation here.

The third area I want to comment upon is the fact that the question has been raised as to whether this is provincial jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction in the area of fisheries has to do with the licensing aspect of the business and not with regard to the criminality or the misconduct of individuals in the taking of the animal or the fish. In this case, this is very clearly a Criminal Code provision and a consequential amendment as a result of the Criminal Code amendment, so this very clearly falls within federal jurisdiction. It allows for exemptions to occur when they are subject to a provincial licence, and provincial licensing authorities are not impacted by this bill in any negative way.

I didn't really come here in order to spend a lot of time going through the bill with you because the bill is pretty straightforward. I commend to you the evidence from all of the expert witnesses who testified at the hearings, particularly the testimony of Dr. Visser. Someone raised the question, for example, of whether jobs might be affected by the closing down of Marineland. Marineland has enough beluga whales in existence to probably continue for another 30 years, so no jobs are going to be lost as a result of this in the immediate future.

My view would be that this amendment is necessary because, in the long run, our society will be much better off if we start to treat other creatures of this existence in the same way that we ourselves feel that we should be treated.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Sinclair.

We will now go to a round of questioning, first from the government side with Mr. Morrissey, for seven minutes or less, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to begin by stating that I very much support the objectives of the bill. I agree with your closing comments, where you reference that no animal should be in captivity.

Beyond the potential job impact within the aquarium, Senator, was there any other negative economic impact as a result of this bill, outside of that direct one?

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

There was nothing raised at the committee when this matter was studied in the Senate.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

So it simply would be the direct impact on aquariums.

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

That's been raised.

Other than the potential closing of the aquarium down the road and the stopping of income with regard to the entertainment aspect of the business, there was no information that was shared with us with regard to the detailed impact of any economic loss that might be engendered by this particular amendment.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I was surprised by your statement that it has enough beluga whales in existence to last for 30 years.

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

That's part of the expert testimony.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would that not be impacted by this legislation?

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

The number of belugas that are currently being held by Marineland—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would be exempted.

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

—would be grandfathered by this legislation, so they're not going to be affected by that. They have enough in captivity, according to the expert testimony that we've heard at the Senate committee—and maybe Dr. Visser has a comment on this—to be able to function as they currently function for a period of 20 to 30 years.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Interesting. That's a substantive piece.

Dr. Visser, do you want to comment?

[Dr. Ingrid Visser]

I agree with Senator Sinclair.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

A level of concern has been the potential of overlapping parts of this bill with existing legislation. I take it the Senate dealt with that in detail?