Niagara Falls, Friday, 17 October 2025.
Canada’s federal government has refused Marineland Niagara Falls’ request to export its remaining beluga whales to Chimelong Ocean Kingdom in China, invoking the 2019 prohibition on cetaceans in entertainment and existing welfare safeguards. The decision, announced by Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson, keeps Canada’s last captive belugas in situ and establishes a regulatory precedent that will tighten cross-border transfers of cetaceans from commercial parks. For operators, licensors and retail partners that rely on marine attractions, this signals heightened scrutiny over long-term care obligations, transport permissions and reputational exposure in international deals. Immediate implications include more conservative permits, stricter welfare clauses and contingency funding demands; longer term, expect higher due diligence costs for global partnerships and potential restrictions on admissions-driven revenue models. Accredited zoo networks have offered rescue support, underscoring alternatives to overseas export. Retail and entertainment buyers should reassess risk pricing, contractual warranties and exit strategies tied to animal-based attractions now.
Federal intervention and legal basis
Canada’s federal government refused Marineland Niagara Falls’ request to export its remaining beluga whales to Chimelong Ocean Kingdom in China, invoking the provisions of the 2019 law that prohibit the use of whales and dolphins in entertainment shows and applying existing welfare safeguards to block an international relocation for exhibition purposes [1]. Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson said she could not in good conscience approve an export that would enable further exploitation, and framed the decision within the statutory regime that restricts cetacean use for entertainment [1].
The ministerial refusal means Canada’s last captive belugas will remain at Marineland in situ for the time being; Marineland had previously warned it could not afford long‑term care without relocating the animals and had set a deadline related to financial assistance requests prior to the federal rejection [1]. Marineland said it was ‘profoundly’ disappointed and argued that humane relocation to an accredited facility abroad was the only viable option to ensure care, language that signals ongoing operational and funding stress at the closed park [1].
Scale of mortality and facility status
Public records and reporting note that, since 2019, 20 whales — one killer whale and 19 belugas — have died at Marineland, a mortality record that underscores regulatory and welfare attention on the facility and framed part of the government’s assessment [1]. Marineland announced it was for sale in early 2023 and closed to the public in late summer 2024, not reopening in 2025, situating the current animals at a site no longer operating for admissions revenue [1].
Accredited zoo and aquarium networks offer alternatives
Accredited zoo and aquarium networks in North America pledged coordinated support and offered expert capacity to explore rescue and relocation alternatives for Marineland’s belugas, stating that cross‑border collaboration among accredited institutions could identify welfare‑focused options and that discussions of euthanasia were unnecessary while the animals’ health permitted rescue and transport [2]. The AZA/CAZA joint statement emphasized willingness to provide veterinary, nutrition and transport expertise to enable transfers into accredited facilities if feasible [2].
Indigenous and regional responses
Calls to Inuit organizations and other northern stakeholders about potential local or regional solutions — including proposals to consider Inuit‑led habitat options in Arctic and subarctic waters — drew limited or no public responses from leading Inuit organizations when interviewed by regional media, leaving a gap in immediate locally led options for the animals [3]. That lack of public engagement from some Inuit organizations was reported amid proposals and debate over whether captive‑born belugas could be rehoused in northern waters, with officials noting ecological and logistical complexity [3].
Industry implications for operators and licensors
The ministerial ruling sets a regulatory precedent that raises compliance and commercial risks for marine parks, licensors and retail partners that rely on cetacean attractions: operators should expect increased scrutiny of long‑term care obligations, tighter conditions on permits and potential restrictions on cross‑border transfers and sales of cetaceans used in entertainment [1][2]. The AZA/CAZA offer of assistance signals that accredited networks may become default partners for welfare‑driven contingency planning, which could increase due diligence costs and change contractual warranties in international licensing deals [2][1].
Financial and reputational consequences for attractions
For park operators and licensors, the decision amplifies near‑term financial pressures — including contingency funding for animal care at closed or selling facilities — while raising reputational exposure for organizations that engage in international transfers to markets that continue to operate large cetacean collections; Marineland’s public statement that it could not pay for continued feeding and care absent export underscores the immediate fiscal stakes [1]. Retail and entertainment buyers tied to animal‑based attractions should reassess contractual risk allocation and exit clauses in light of more conservative permit outcomes and potential protracted regulatory reviews [1][2].
Public reporting, on‑the‑ground claims and uncertainty
Online posts and community reports have amplified concern about the number and condition of animals at Marineland, including claims about staff actions and identified counts of animals; such accounts exist on social platforms but are not official records and should be treated with caution until verified by accredited institutions or government sources [4][5][alert! ‘social‑platform posts are not official records and lack independent verification’].
Regulatory signal and next steps for stakeholders
The refusal sends a clear signal that Canadian authorities will apply the 2019 cetacean‑entertainment prohibition and welfare safeguards to international export requests, and that decisions will factor both statutory limits and welfare assessments; operators will have to build stronger, welfare‑centred contingency plans and governments and accredited associations may be expected to coordinate on rescue options [1][2]. How the parties — Marineland, federal and provincial governments, accredited networks, Indigenous organizations and potential international recipients — negotiate next steps will shape precedent for cross‑border transfers of captive cetaceans from commercial parks [1][2][3].
Bronnen