Andrew Fenton outlines the ethical and legal reasons against sending Marineland’s captive beluga whales to facilities in other countries.

__________________________________________

Marineland, the now defunct aquarium and “fun park” located in Niagara Falls Ontario, has been in the news again. On October 1^st, 2025, Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson denied them permission to export their remaining 30 belugas to China’s Chimelong Ocean Kingdom.  In her statement, Minister Thompson maintains that continuing the belugas’ lives in captivity and as a source of entertainment is objectionable and she notes the negative health impacts of confinement in artificial environments. Most importantly, as Fisheries Minister, Minister Thompson highlights that denying Marineland the right to export these belugas aligns with the legally required consideration of “the best interests of the cetacean’s welfare” (Criminal Code 445.2 (3) (c); Fisheries Act 23.2 (2)(b)).

Canada’s legal stance on cetacean captivity fundamentally changed in 2019 when the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act received royal assent. That Act reflects a recognition that keeping cetaceans in captivity in artificial environments is morally unacceptable. When endorsing the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act to the Canadian Senate, Senators Wilfred Moore and Murray Sinclair (the first and second sponsors of then Bill S-203) spoke of the “inherent cruelty” of such captivity. MP Elizabeth May, the bill’s sponsor in the House of Commons, said much the same.

Photo Credit: Jenny Spadafora/flickr. Image Description: A photo of a beluga whale.

After all, these tanks provide neither the space nor the stimulation typical of the ocean habitats of free-living belugas. What’s more, these whales cannot live on their own terms, socializing with (or avoiding) different members of their own species as they choose, building family units, exploring their natural ocean environment, and predating. On the face of it, to intentionally deny these animals a richer life, closer to something typical for their species, is immoral. To do it for either entertainment (or scientific) reasons, fails to offer a benefit that clearly outweighs the costs to the captive belugas. To choose to keep these whales in captivity despite knowing these consequences, but also knowing such captivity to be associated with clear negative behavioral and health impacts on the whales, gets us comfortably into the vicinity of cruelty (or intentionally/willfully causing unnecessary suffering).

As reported in the media, Marineland has had problems properly caring for its captive animals. Examples include bear enclosure problems, water quality issues in their cetacean tanks, and the premature deaths of belugas in their possession or when sold and shipped to Mystic Aquarium in the US. But it has also financially benefitted from owning and displaying these animals, as have other Ontario businesses associated with tourism in the region. These benefits incur a debt that is owed to the captive animals. It is unfair to these animals to hang their future on the good will of sanctuary donors, or, as some are suggesting, the continued patronage of non-Canadian aquariums (which couldn’t operate as they currently do, were they to try to “set up shop” in Canada).

There has been chatter about sending the belugas to accredited aquariums, even in the US. But this demands that we consider why we would risk their lives or health sending them abroad if aquariums can be built in Canada that are ethically and legally unobjectionable? If these international aquariums remain ethically objectionable, how can it be ethically acceptable to export the belugas to their facilities? We cannot export-away our recognized ethical duties to these whales. But the accrediting agency also matters. The US AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) openly opposes government bans on captive breeding of cetaceans. Whatever they mean by “good animal welfare” or a good life for captive cetaceans in artificial environments, it runs counter to the considerations that underpin Canadian law on the matter. In other words, the AZA is not a reliable partner when it comes to seeing the “inherent cruelty” of cetacean captivity in artificial environments. As captive belugas are property under most global laws (I only hesitate to say “all” because I don’t know of anyone who’s done an exhaustive search), there’s nothing stopping the next aquarium (be they accredited or not) breeding these whales to enlarge their “collection” or financially enrich their organization unless it’s illegal to do so in their country. Minimally, this should be one of the criteria for approving their relocation—it must be illegal to breed captive cetaceans in the receiving country.

Changes in Canadian law brought us to this moment. Sound ethical decisions, based on recognizable and defensible principles, must pave the way forward for these belugas.

For another ethically-informed perspective, see Maneesha Deckha’s blog at The Conversation.

__________________________________________

Andrew Fenton is a Professor of Philosophy at Dalhousie University