Baby chicks mailed by the National Postal Service.
Animal testing lab whistleblowers getting threatened
by mysterious powers. Polar bears allowed to
be hunted despite being in danger of extinction.
This is Canada in 2025 as it faces what could
be the most consequential election in its history,
fighting an economic war with Trump's United
States. In today's episode, I am joined by the
inspiring Liz White, leader of the Animal Protection
Party of Canada, for one of the few conversations
exploring what is at stake for the billions of
animals whose fate will soon be decided at the
ballot box. You know, we live in unusual times
and people are very afraid of what's going to
happen. We have no idea what Mr. Trump south
of the border is going to do at any given time.
And so things are kind of in somewhat of a chaos.
And so, you know, we're looking at unprecedented
times in many ways. I don't think in all the
years that I've been in politics since the 70s
that I've seen anything like this, but I would
say I think we have a very real opportunity here
to separate ourselves out and to redefine ourselves
in a way that makes us very, very different from
the United States. I think we are very different,
but I want to focus on the animal issue. In a
way, we're different because, say, for animal
agriculture, The size of the farms are much smaller
than the United States. And we have, I think,
probably stricter rules about how farmed animals
are handled, but those aren't always followed
or enforced. And so, you know, we have very difficult
situations with farm animals in Canada, but to
a much lesser extent than the United States.
And then that gives us a very real opportunity
to begin to pivot away from animal agriculture,
particularly intensive animal agriculture to
begin with, and then to pivot away from animal
agriculture altogether as our commitment to impart
reducing our contribution to global warming and
our contribution to animal rights and animal
welfare in Canada. And I think we have a very
real opportunity to do that because many of our
animals go to the United States. pigs, pork goes
to the United States. All sorts of animals are
transported to the United States. Sows that no
longer give birth are transported to the United
States for slaughter. I mean, all kinds of things
are happening in this particular situation. And
again, on the chicken side, all kinds of chickens
that are from forced molting and egg laying farms,
spent hands, are shipped up to Canada for slaughter
and none of that really needs to happen. We can
say with regard to the terrorists, no, we're
not gonna do that anymore. And I think we begin
to redefine how we do animal agriculture in Canada.
So I think we have a very real opportunity. With
regard to animals and research, I don't see anything
really changing substantially in that regard
under the current circumstances, but maybe with
the turmoil that it has caused, with the inability
for research to continue as it was in the United
States, we may have an opportunity to change
that as well. So I look on it with dread in some
ways and with opportunity in other ways. And
what about the activism scene? Do you feel or
think that the animal rights activism scene in
Canada is less developed than in the US or more
so? Can you also differentiate those two worlds
of activism? From my point of view, The work
that people do covertly in labs makes it very
much harder to get information out about what's
happening. I've done multiple freedom of information
at the federal level, the AATIP program, but
predominantly in Ontario because they have an
Animals for Research Act, and the Animals for
Research Act is under the FOIP. freedom of information
process, so I can do freedom of information for
that. The standard line for denying me any information
is the threat of violence against researchers,
research laboratories, their homes, their families,
and so most of the information that would be
very helpful in fighting to get an end to this
process is completely denied and it makes it
very very difficult to actually get at the problem.
The rest of Canada is a serious problem because
they do not have any act that governs them. They're
under the Canadian Council on Animal Care which
is a voluntary body and frankly not much help
when even we know that there's issues going on
within a particular facility or within a particular
government agency and we lay a complaint Those
are, as far as I can tell, are never really dealt
with. So we have a very difficult road to hoe.
I think it would be difficult anyway, but the
difference in the United States is that they
have sunshine laws. And so they're able to get
much more information about what goes on, for
example, in research laboratories and then be
able to expose them. to the public and there's
an assumption that all of that information in
the United States should be public really. I
don't know whether that's the case right at the
moment because they're in the process of dismantling
some of the research facilities and their work
but in the end there has been a long history
in the United States of getting that information
out where you know it's kind of opposite where
in Canada it's almost impossible to get information
out about what's going on in research laboratories.
Now, when it comes to animal agriculture, which
is another biggie, right? Those are two big,
you know, confinement issues and end of life
issues and so on. The the farms in the United
States have or some of the states in the United
States have, of course, passed ag -gag laws and
some of those have been challenged and overturned.
In Canada, of course, in Ontario, the provincial
government here implemented an ag piece of legislation.
It's currently going through the courts. We are
there as interveners, animal justice leading
it, but we're there as interveners. And so we'll
see what happens with that particular situation.
but I think part of the law has already been
struck down and I suspect that other part of
the law might in fact be struck down as well.
I think we have a very strong argument. So slowly
we're picking away at it but it's extremely difficult
in Canada to get information about what is actually
going on. Not in an overall general sense because
the CCAC provides us with that but in a research
facility by research facility. In the FOI material
that I got from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs that governs the Animals
for Research Act, I was able to get heavily redacted
information from each research facility in Canada
and the inspection reports that took place in
those facilities. And the inspection reports
showed that in many cases, the research facilities
were in non -compliance with the regulations
that were set out in the Animals Research Act
and in fact some were in violation of those not
just in non -compliance but in violation of those
and so you wonder if that is what you're seeing
out of a heavily redacted document what's actually
going on in those facilities and so far we haven't
been able to find out. Yeah, so one of the interesting
examples of how hard it is to get information.
We had a situation where a student or students
entered our KEL research facilities, which is
at the University of Guelph. And they do research
on farmed animals, basically. And they found
that the door was open and nobody was inside.
except the animals, of course, who are somebody.
And they went through and documented the condition
of the animals, which were pretty grim, and I
think pretty much unacceptable for a research
facility in Ontario under the Animals Research
Act. So they posted, they took pictures, they
posted on Facebook, I reached out to them and
asked if I could lay a complaint based on their
photos and their information. They agreed. I
laid complaints to the university, Omafra, and
at the federal level, and was denied all information
about what was going on there, even though, you
know, the chickens were in really terrible condition
and the pigs were. And why we were denied that
information is beyond me, but it just goes to
show you how difficult it is to get any information
out about what's occurring to these animals.
So You know, when we get good examples like that,
we continue to build on the pressure to the research
facilities, to the farm animals to get changes.
You mentioned how researchers get threatened.
Did I hear that correctly? And, you know, who
is doing the threatening? Well, that's the interesting
thing, Rayyan. I get denied information based
on one -liner, you know, threats of violence
and intimidation. So I've written to the IPC,
to OMAFRA, to the CCAC to please tell me what
are the incidents and who's doing it. And they
won't tell me. So I know, but I know from doing
a freedom of information request to St. Mike's
Hospital, because they use animals there, that
they challenged my request based on being persecuted,
intimidated, and worried about violence. And
so I dug around a little bit and actually in
their report they said that outside of the facility,
which they not list on list the address where
the animals come in. They do all that's all that's
public. And yet they're afraid because somebody
wrote in chalk on the sidewalk. What was it?
Something about animals dying on level eight
of the facility and. that was what they used.
And a reporter came to their door to ask for
more information about what was going on to the
animals. And that's what they used as intimidation.
And so I have not been able to get an answer
since then as to who's doing the intimidation
and what's the level of the intimidation. So
we don't really know. That's crazy. Crazy. Yep.
Yep. You're not allowed to know what's going
on in the research laboratory, who's doing it.
where the animals are coming from, what they're
subjected to, and if there is a threat, what
kind of threat there is and who's doing it. You
can't have any of that information. I guess in
there, there's an implicit confession of, you
know, there's an implicit understanding that
if you had access to that information and you
were able to expose it and present that to Canadians,
then they would side with you and make those
practices stop. Isn't there, you know, this implicit
understanding? I think the interesting information
about this particular issue, and maybe even farmed
animals, those are the you know, really big,
or the big numbers are that certainly with the
research issue, Most people just don't believe
it's happening. I mean, it is a huge barrier
to get over. We went from a broader campaign
to a much narrower campaign talking about pets
going to research, animals that end up in ponds
and shelters are requisitioned by research facilities
and they get the animals and they do research
on them. And people just cannot believe that
that happens. And yet the statistics from the
Canadian Council on Animal Care show large numbers
of pet animals, companion animals are sent to
research. And in fact, some of the most painful
research is done on them. And yet, you know,
trying to get people to understand that actually
happens and how it happens because it's so secretive.
is really impossible. And so it makes going after
change in these situations a challenge. So years
and years ago, I was an activist for an organization.
I was volunteering for them on a campaign about
tax heavens. I learned a lot about tax heavens
and how different countries are different kinds
of tax havens for different industries. And I
guess my question is, is Canada like a special
place for the ag or animal exploitation industry?
Like, if you are in in, you know, big pharma,
and you want to you know, experiment on on animals
and do some of the worst experiments out there.
Is Canada one of the best place to to do so because,
you know, of that barrier to access of information
and, and, you know, how they are allowed to be
because I feel like they're really empowered
here. I think partly that's the case and partly
It's just how the research community worldwide
works. As long as you can shut down any conversation
about it, they are less exposed to what they're
doing and less having to have a conversation
that maybe they should change, that maybe they
might want to look at NAMs, the non -animal alternatives,
of which there are many in... in place now and
many that are being developed by people who are
doing alternative science in that regard. I think
where Canada becomes a haven, and it's not really
a haven, I think it's sloppy work on the part
of our government and maybe that makes us a haven,
but I think a good example of that is the trade
-in long -tailed macaque monkeys from Cambodia.
under the CITES, the Convention on the International
Trade in Endangered Species, if you're going
to use monkeys for research, you have to have
them from a breeding facility, not from the wild.
And of course, with things like COVID and other
viruses floating around, and they're used for
that kind of research, there is huge pressure.
to get more and more macaque monkeys. And so
Charles River, which is one of the largest facilities
in the United States, and I think one of the
only that imports macaque monkeys, was under
investigation by the U .S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and in fact they found that they are
alleged to have imported monkeys from the wild,
and so they have been denied bringing any monkeys
into the United States. So Charles River who
has a company here, simply move their import
into Canada. And Canada's become the largest
importer of long -tailed macaque monkeys into
Canada. And the more than a suspicion, I would
say, exists that these animals came from the
wild, not from a breeding facility, because If
you look at the number of females in a breeding
facility, the length of time it takes for them
to have babies, the length of time it takes them
to raise them so that they can be used for research,
the numbers of monkeys that are coming through
simply outpace what a breeding facility or breeding
facilities can produce. So we know they're caught
from the wild and that's the issue and CITES
is taking a look at it, but it makes you feel
like Canada has become a safe haven that in fact,
our folks in the Ministry of the Environment
are not really looking very hard at the documentation
of these monkeys and where they came from. And
then I guess, like you alluded to, is it, you
know, wilfulness from them? Or is it just sloppiness?
Is it just incompetence? Are they really understanding
the issue and turning a blind eye on purpose
because they have been captured by this industry?
I think they're looking just looking at the paperwork.
The paperwork says captivity. And we know, you
know, I mean, the difficulty is this issue of
reliability of information from Cambodia. And
so, you know, what the U .S. Fish and Wildlife
has alleged to have found is that those documents
were not true. And when they asked Charles River
to prove where these animals came from, Charles
River stopped importing into the US and brought
it into Canada. So, you know, you think down
there, I think, interestingly, before Trump got
him. The U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service did
a good job at actually taking it on, investigating
it, looking at it. I mean, PETA was actually
involved in producing some of the information,
but the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually
did a sting operation and all that sort of stuff.
So I think they did their due diligence. I think
Canada just looks at the paperwork and says,
OK. To continue on this comparison, between the
US and Canada. Something the US has that is an
envy, I guess, for me, is freedom of speech.
And, you know, it's a constitutional right. It's
there, I think, First Amendment. But we don't
really have something like that in Canada. And
what is the impact of that for activism and for
animal rights activists in Canada? Well, I think
the ag -gag legislation that's being challenged
in court in Ontario is a good example of, you
know, it's going to probably have to go to the
Supreme Court. You know, whether the Supreme
Court actually agrees to look at it is a whole
other thing. But if they do agree to look at
it, then you know we may be able to lay a marker
through the constitution about free speech and
about the ability of people to actually document
the condition of animals and how they're treated
legally and and not be constantly harassed and
thrown in jail. You know the the farmers argue
that if people go into the barns it contaminates
the animals But when you look at the actual facts
of the case, none of those animals are discarded.
They go to slaughter and they're eaten. So there's
clearly not a problem with contamination of the
animals or spreading disease. And so, you know,
their argument for doing that is out the window.
So we'll see what happens. And that may have
winning that case. in total may have a substantial
impact on the ability of people to talk out about
things and to actually document things. But that's
just Ontario. Now, you know, as the courts function,
they often refer to cases that are outside of
their jurisdiction. You know, something comes
up in Alberta and there's a challenge about free
speech. Somebody may use the issue from Ontario
to bolster their case. But, you know, it largely,
I think, affects Ontario. It may affect beyond
that. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know.
Talking about contamination, I followed closely
the work of activists in the US who documented
what's happening on the avian influenza front
and that epidemic and how it affected and still
affects the industry. Have we been impacted by
this epidemic? Because I did not see news outlets
covering the price of eggs in Canada or something
like that. B .C. was the hardest hit. And we've
killed, I think, a million chickens in Canada.
I'm not sure exactly of the number, but it's
huge. And of course, that wouldn't take a long
time to come because many of the barns have 40,
50, 60 ,000 chickens in them. And it depends,
I guess, on whether they're egg layers or whether
they're raised to be eaten quickly, broilers,
they call them. they've had to kill many, many,
many chickens. It's affected a number of barns
in BC. And they had to hire contract out people
to do the killing in some of the barns because
the CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency couldn't
handle it. And what they found was that those
people who are not particularly trained in doing
this job, were contaminating non -contaminated
barns when they traveled from barn to barn and
spreading the virus. So there was a report about
that. So it was not particularly well done and
we really don't have the facilities to do it.
And beyond that, it is one of the cruelest way
to kill animals. They basically suffocate them.
They often use foam to suffocate them. you think
about what those birds go through, you know,
not because of their fault, but because of the
fault of people around them and the way in which
they're raised and so on. And the cruelty is
incredible. And try to get information out about
how that takes place, what it looks like. Do
they have pictures? It's a no -go. This is a
very niche question, but What do you make of
this new trend? Maybe it's not new, but it feels
like it's a new trend in the past years of having
backyard chickens. There were laws passed in
many Quebec cities here that authorize people
to keep chickens in their backyard. Don't you
think that there is a risk of contamination with
this whole, you know, even influence a thing?
Are we playing with fire with, you know, by allowing
people to keep chickens in their backyard? I
actually think we're playing with fire. Yes,
we were able to get the city of Toronto to back
off the bylaw that we're allowing chickens in
the backyard. It was a big fight because people
wanted those chickens. and you know it's like
you think about it just you rent them. You don't
think you know you rent your these little animals
and you rent the housing for them and you stick
them in your backyard and you love them for a
few months until they stop laying then you send
them back and nobody knows what happens to them.
The the owners of some of the rented chicken
facilities say oh well you know we take care
of your chickens and love them and you'll get
your same chickens back but nobody really knows
and you know and beyond that what is also shocking
to many people is that we mail chicks out to
people who want backyard chickens so we put them
in Canada Post and mail them and you know you
look at this whole situation not only is it cruel
and ridiculous, because the eggs cost about $2
an egg, it is also the cruelty and the insanity
of it, but yes, you're playing with fire. It's
like that avian influenza is very, very contagious,
and you can't stop other birds from coming into
your backyard with the chickens. And, you know,
and that's how the contamination happens. So
the City of Toronto decided to ban it altogether,
which was great. But many other communities are
going on as though nothing's happening. And,
you know, the problem with avian influence is
it's transmitting to other animals and it's been
transmitted to people from animals. It hasn't
transmitted from people to people yet. But this
is a virus that is evolving. And somehow we think
that it's all good and that nothing's going to
happen. And, you know, we could be in a situation
like COVID all over again and much more serious
because there are no vaccines for it. And I think
we're just playing with fire. So, yeah, I would
recommend every community in Canada ban backyard
chickens. What do you mean by mailing chicks?
Well, they put them in a box. They seal the box.
They put a stamp on it and they put it in Canada
Post. Chicks. Live chicks. And is it only an
Ontario thing? Like, is there a limit to how
many days? It's Canada Post. Canada Post does
it. Required to do it. And they could spend days
in that box. Well, they indicate that there's
something live in the box. So it's supposed to
get moving, but you can imagine we had a strike.
It happened at a time when the chicks probably
aren't moving, but we had a strike. If that had
happened in the summertime, the chicks would
have died. They would have simply starved to
death or suffocated. And so, you know, you look
at this thing and you think, that's just cruelty.
There's no way around it. You can't do this.
And yet it's accepted as a standard way to get
chicks. We've tried to fight it, but we haven't
been successful at this point. It's pretty shocking
what we do to animals, isn't it? I'm I'm I don't
know what to say. I think I've been vegan for
the last 10 years. I'm still shocked by the level
of cruelty and and what it means really what
it means to treat people sentient beings as as
objects. Yep. Yep. Well, you know, our standards
at least in the United States are lowering because
we're allowed to steal people off a sidewalk,
send them to a detention center, and then ship
them to another country to their prison system.
So, you know, you look at that situation and
you think, you know, what we're doing, if what
we do to human beings is acceptable, our own
species, Why do we think it's going to be different
for species that look different from us, behave
differently, communicate differently? People
look at them and don't know what to make of them.
And we're lucky in the sense that we have a fairly
large community of people who are compassionate
and want to make a change. And so we need to
keep working at that. We have to get up out of
bed every morning, even if we don't want to face
the day and face the awful situation that animals
go through. But we have to do it so that we never
give up on this issue. And we never give up on
trying to protect the animals that we know are
subjected to abuse, misuse, cruelty, whatever
you want to call it. Yes, I think the difference
is when we talk about human rights, there's a
much larger network of people and organizations
and so much funding dedicated to shedding light
on those issues. But, you know, you could be
a vegan of 10 years living in Canada and not
even be aware that there are chicks being mailed
by Canada Post, you know, the, the information
that how, you know, it is all done in darkness
and silence. It's an indifference of the public.
It's, that's, I think, the real difference between
human rights and animal rights. I think that's
why the Animal Protection Party of Canada is
so important. It's the only animal protection
party in Canada and we've been around since 2006
and it's small because we live in a first -past
-the -post system. But if you look at Party for
the Animals in the Netherlands, where they have
proportional representation. They've actually
elected representatives to the European Union,
to the European Parliament. They have elected
officials to their national government and all
the way down to local governments. It's done
differently than we do here. But they have been
able to expose and have documentation that they
have access to. They get government money because
they're a political party and they have representatives
elected. And they've begun a real active, aggressive
debate in the Netherlands about animals and the
environment and the cruelty. And we have a real
opportunity to do it here. And that's why the
Animal Protection Party is participating in another
challenge, charter challenge. which is the proportional
representation. Fair Voting BC and Springtide
are the two entities that are leading the charge
on that. We've participated by donating to the
cause and we're going, when it gets to the Supreme
Court, if it does, we will ask to be interveners
as the only political party that's fair talking
about this issue, if you can imagine. I think
that's the, you know, if we want to close that
conversation about the difference between the
US and Canada, I think that's what the US will
never have the hope of a proportional democratic
system, where an animal protection party can
reach power. But but we do have that hope. And
if, if we can get there, I do think it's you
have convinced me that it would be, you know,
checkmate. and we could make a really huge impact.
Yeah, we're the just for an example, in this
election, Pierre Poliev says he's going to open
up the seal hunt again. No markets know anything.
They're talking about grinding them up for fertilizer.
And we're the only party that has a position
on it. Other than the conservatives who want
to increase it. So I think we are able to participate
fully in the election. We can take out ads and
talk about the seal hunt and so on. So we're
able to actually on the ground during that very
critical time when people are more actively looking
at alternatives, we're there to provide that
alternative if they so choose. And so I want
to spend a moment talking about wildlife You
mentioned Seals which is you know, I've been
hearing about talent long before I was even vegan
People don't want to see that they don't want
you know seal hunting Seals are just those the
cutest creatures out there And and the way they
hunt them is just the most you know, barbaric
thing you could ever watch, you know, the footage
of that. So how is it that it's not, you know,
more of a popular political issue? I feel like
political parties could, you know, make it an
issue and gain lots of popularity with voters.
Well, there's a couple of things. This issue
has been going on for a very, very long time.
And a colleague of mine, Stephen Best, worked
on, and Barry Mackay worked on the initial fight
and it was a big issue. It was huge, huge debate.
And ultimately they want to ban on the import
of white coats, the very, very, the babies of
the seals. And that's what they were after originally
taking the the white coats because that was the
most sought after fur. Once they're past the
white coat stage, which is about two or three
weeks, they become what they call beaters and
their fur is very stiff, silvery, blotchy, not
really the kind of fur that's going to really
be acquired by people who want to wear fur coats.
They then became, when that happened, the seal
industry went down the tubes for a while. And
then under the Liberal Party, it came back in
a huge way. They set the kill at 340 ,000 seals,
I think. And they never reached that amount,
but they took an awful lot of seals out of that.
And that's again when they went to the European
Union, European Parliament, to say, would you
consider this is too high a number you know it's
affecting the seal population global warming
is happening the seals need ice to to to have
their babies on and the ice is disappearing could
you ban the import of seal products into the
european union and in fact they did and that
brought the seal hunt down again there is a challenge
at the european parliament as to whether they're
going to reopen and consider retaking the seal
products. But I think there's enough opposition
in Europe that that's not going to happen. So,
you know, these animals are being killed because
there's no market. And if Poliev opens the market,
there'll be more animals killed and there's no
market. The last time, not the last time, but
the time before The first time he appeared on
the show, we talked about also the bears and
the market for, you know, hunting bears and how
it was even international. We have people from
all over the world, mostly the US coming to Canada
to hunt bears. Has there been any evolution in
that regard? And do you think that with a conservative
government? Um, hunting bears and hunting in
general, um, would be, you know, um, more open
and less restrictive and, um, more, you know,
indifference to animal welfare. Um, under the
conservative party, really they haven't done
a lot of changes to the fish and wildlife conservation
act. The only thing that they did, which was
egregious, totally egregious, is that the fishermen
don't like cormorants. So cormorants are big
black birds that, you know, dive in the water,
eat the fish, and then they come out, they nest
in trees, their guano kills the trees. So they
changed the topography of the area that they
are in. In Toronto, we have the largest cormorant
colony in North America, right at the bottom
of the city near the lake. And we've been able
to protect those, but in the province itself,
the provincial government opened up hunting.
Nobody eats cormorants, nobody. So when they
shoot cormorants, they have to waste them. So
they had to amend the act to allow people to
just shoot them and leave them there. If you
had to bear, you can't waste that animal. You
have to use the pelt, use the meat, all that
sort of stuff. Same with deer and so on. But
we had a massive victory in Ontario in quite
a while ago. they prohibited bear hunting in
the spring. And the problem with spring bear
hunting is that often mother bears are killed
and the cubs are left to be orphans. So they,
you know, more than one bear dies, of course,
and of course it's cruel and all that sort of
stuff. So they decided at that point under Mike
Harris, actually, another conservative government
to ban the spring bear hunt, which they did.
And then under Kathleen Wynne's government, they
decided that they needed more northern volts
and so they opened up the spring bear hunt again.
So we lost that all together and so spring bear
hunts continue. You can't hint any other animal
in the spring because they consider it to be
cruel, but bears are okay. And so bears are killed
in the spring and in the fall. The government
doesn't really collect, you know, they used to
collect great detailed information about what
type of bears were being killed. How old were
they? Were they male and female? Was one a lactating
female? You know, all that sort of stuff. The
other thing that they allow is baiting. So you
put out a pail of donuts and honey and all sorts
of things that smell good to a bear to attract
them to the bait site. And then they have to
reach up to get the food out of the drum. And
then the hunters say that they can tell what
the sex of the bear is so they don't shoot females
but that is in fact not the case and of course
there are lots of females shot and some of them
lactating. So you know the whole thing and that's
pretty true across Canada and of course in Alberta
we're talking about also hunting grizzly bears
which are small in number. And that's in order
to attract people from the United States to come
up and hunt trophy hunting. So, you know, from
an animal protection point of view, it's pretty
wicked out there for any wild animal. They tend
to be persecuted by some group or other, and
often hunted by some group or other. You know,
it's very, very difficult to get it stopped.
What about the use of poison to kill wildlife?
So we started that campaign quite a long time
ago. In fact, it was right at the very beginning
of Animal Alliance that we took on British Columbia
because they were using poisons to kill wolves
and stuff. and they actually put a pause on that
and the pause has continued to this day. So the
only province now, and then it used to be Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we've been able to
get stuff, strychnine that they were using to
kill Richardson's ground squirrels, which they
don't like in animal agriculture business, stopped
and the use of of other poisons we've been able
to stop. So we're now down to Alberta. Alberta
used to use compound 1080 or monosodium fluoroacetate
or strychnine to kill wolves and to protect caribou
and to kill wolves and coyotes to protect agriculture,
animals, farmed animals. and we managed to get
the strychnine banned. So we're now down to one
province, one poison, and we're in the process
of building a campaign to get that eliminated
as well. It's, I mean, I don't know whether anybody's
looked at videos of this stuff, but you know,
in other countries they often use things like
strychnine and Compound 80 to kill animals in
cities where they've become nuisance and people
have taken videos and when you look at what the
animal goes through after eating compound 1080
or strychnine it's just heart -wrenching and
you know things you can't erase from your mind
and so the faster we get this done the better
but we've made very real progress over the last
10 or 15 years. And a complex question I've had
in mind for a long time now is what do you make
of the argument from hunters that say, hey, there
is an overpopulation of this or that species
in the wild. And so we need to reduce their numbers.
Is there any validity to that? We're just doing,
we've just been working on this issue of overpopulation.
And, you know, what the hunters, and in fact,
some government agencies, the Ontario government,
I believe the Quebec government at some times,
and that our national park system often deem
animals as being hyperabundant, overabundant,
overpopulated are the various terms that they
use. And you say, okay, we're looking at a dynamic
ecosystem. We're looking at global warming and
dynamic changes to the ecosystem. And by what
measure are you determining something to be overpopulated
or hyperabundant? And it's strictly based on
their opinion about what a particular area is
to look like. So with the cormorants, on Middle
Island, which is in Lake Erie in Ontario, Parks
Canada deemed them to be hyperabundant on Middle
Island, one island, one island in the middle
of a bunch of islands in Lake Erie, an island
that nobody can go to. It was bought up by and
Parks Canada or the groups that bought it transferred
it over to Parks Canada under Point Pelee National
Park. They determined the cormorants to be hyperabundant
and since 2008 have conducted culling programs
on Middle Island so that the vegetation looks
the same as it did before the cormorants came.
So there's no sense of evolution In an ecosystem,
there's no sense that there has to be space for
animals that change topographies and ecosystems.
You know, these are the type of animals that
are change makers, right? That they go in and
they change the environment. And people don't
like what they see, so they want them gone. And
what we've managed to do with a large population
in Toronto and I invite people in the summertime,
spring and summertime to come and go to Tommy
Thompson Park and revel in the amazingness of
this water bird colony in a highly dense urban
environment and they're thriving but they agreed,
the people managing them agreed to do an alternative
approach so they They want to keep trees in certain
areas. They don't care about trees in other areas.
So they chase the cormorants out of the treed
areas into the areas where they want them. They've
encouraged ground nesting as opposed to tree
nesting. And I think 75 % of the colony now nests
on the ground. And so it's been a tremendous
success. So it shows you that you can do things
differently. But the go -to in most of these
situations where they claim hyperabundance is
killing. And we don't really hear that much about
underpopulation in certain areas. We have growing
cities that are eating more and more territories,
ecosystems, and nobody is talking about how in
those cities there's no biodiversity, there is
no where all of the species that were supposed
to to live there. And now it's all grades, all
as felted, it's all Yeah. Yeah. The interesting
thing about the city of Toronto is that it's
highly dense, for sure. But we have lots of ravine
systems and and places where wildlife can hang
out. And so we actually have a very rich mix
of animals that can coexist with human beings
and feel comfortable there. The issue becomes,
of course, can human beings be comfortable with
the animals? And in fact, we have one issue right
now. where there's a lot of in -dust development
going on in along the lake in very, very dense
communities already, but Ontario Place, they're
redeveloping. It was a great piece of land with
trees and hardly anybody there. And so there
was a lot of wildlife there. They have been disturbed
and have moved into this highly dense area. particular
is coyotes particularly that have done this and
they are now you know uh conflicting with the
residents there who want to have their dogs off
the leash let them run around you know, do all
that sort of thing, which is really great for
the dogs, except that if there's a coyote in
the area and the dog is little, it may be that
the coyote will try and take that little dog.
And if it's off leash somewhere away from you,
you can't protect it. So we're going through
a massive discussion about living coexisting
peacefully with coyotes and our animal services.
folks are doing a really, really good job at
mitigating, trying to mitigate some of the conflicts.
But the residents want the coyotes killed and
removed. So we're into that kind of discussion.
So we'll see how it evolves. But we, you know,
if we can get over this hurdle, we can learn
to live with coyotes. in the area and in fact
in other communities it's been done in other
parts of Toronto it's been done but for some
reason we're into a real fight on this one so
these are important fights where you lay down
the line and you say no we're going to fight
this if we lose we lose but you know we won't
don't want to agree that the coyotes should be
removed lethally removed out of this area because
the residents don't want to put their dogs on
a leash. So, you know, in the long run, I think
it's really important that urban areas learn
to attract, accommodate, enjoy, live with, leave
alone wildlife, because we are, as you say, chewing
up what would be their wild territory and putting
housing all over the place. So if we can build
the community in a way that allows corridors,
you know, forested corridors through the communities
so that the animals can travel safely, they don't
have to go on the road. If we can have ravines
and large parks with areas that are protected
from people, we can accommodate wildlife nicely
and increase the diversity in our own communities.
and become ecologically friendly kind of a weird
question but do you do you think that environmentalists
are our allies no absolutely not please expand
isn't one environmental group that i know of
that has spoken out about the cormorants and
we've been uh fighting this thing for 20 years
Culling Cormons on Middle Island began in 2008
and, you know, we're close to 20 years, 18 years
or so. So nobody has spoken out about it. In
fact, you know, the groups that got together
to buy Middle Island and then donate it to Parks
Canada have not spoken out about it. In fact,
some of the groups want the call. They want the
vegetation. They don't want the birds. And, you
know, cormorants were persecuted were down to
about a thousand individuals because they were
so persecuted and they've made this uh and then
they were you know that they were the persecution
stopped but then ddd came around and they were
hit with that and so they've now made this miraculous
comeback an amazing comeback into you know a
couple of million birds not a lot um and and
they seem to be thriving and yet what do we want
to do we want to persecute them and kill them
again i mean you know i i don't find environmental
groups standing up for these sort of things no
and you mentioned how the animal protection party
is the only party wanting a proportional democratic
system. So that means that excludes the Green
Party. The Green Party, I don't know what the
position is. The provincial Green Party used
to have a position on partial representation.
And then I don't I think they don't now. I'm
not sure. But I'm wrong on that. Actually, I
think they they do support proportional representation.
I don't know about the federal party. But they're
not participating in the court case. There's
not one party other than ours that have participated
in the court case. So you've got to ask yourself,
what is it going to take to... If Trudeau, who
promised to bring in proportional representation,
didn't do it and other elected officials are
not particularly supportive of the idea, Then,
you know, how do we get it to happen? And, and,
you know, I don't know that the Greens have been
that active in this whole, this whole fight.
Well, you know, I don't care what they say. I
want to see action. Why are you not on the front
line of this legal fight? Yep. Yep. I think,
you know, when you when you think about it, if
we had one person, in Parliament. Let's just
say one. We would not be able to talk very much,
but we would be able to talk, we would be able
to ask questions, but we would be able to logically
dig for information out of the party, right?
Out of the government. So we could dig away at
situations around the CFIA, around the expenditures
and calling it Parks Canada, the research issue,
the funding for research through the various
entities that fund research in Canada. We could
do all of that. We could start getting the information
out publicly on those issues, even just having
one person in Parliament. And so, you know, you
have to ask yourself, even in our movement, the
animal rights movement, why are we not more electorally
and politically engaged? Because they're the
people who make the decisions. Who lives, who
dies, who suffers, by how much, how often, all
of those issues are decided by governments. And
we seem to think that If we just show governments
how bad it is, they'll do something about it.
But that's not how politics works. You know,
they look at the agricultural community, the
number of votes there. They look at our movement.
They look at the people that are in the movement.
They have no idea how they're going to vote.
And so what's the political upside to doing anything?
And, you know, the first past the post just continues
to make sure that that whole idea and consideration
stays in place. Going back quickly to the environmentalists.
What is their agenda exactly? Because at first,
you know, I was very much, you know, aligned
with them and I'm talking before becoming vegan.
But then I had an evolution in my thinking and
I felt strongly that becoming vegan was the best
thing to do for the environment. And that's when
I felt kind of a separation with the environmental
movement and felt like they were not making lots
of sense. And now I'm just confused, you know,
what are they about? Well, you know, it's not
that they're all bad. They fight, you know, they
fought to protect the green space north of Toronto
that Ford wanted to develop houses on. They fight
for parks and for woodlots, protection of woodlots.
And a lot of them do that kind of work very,
very well. And that's really important because,
of course, animals need a place to live. And
the more of those places that we have, the better.
But in a way, it's kind of like you defend the
maintenance of an apartment building, but you
don't defend the occupants. Do they allow hunting
in these areas? What do they allow? And in some
cases, they absolutely allow hunting in the wood
lots that they've protected. They absolutely
support Parks Canada and its culling programs.
They support hunting in provincial parks by First
Nations. So in a way across Canada, there is
not a single area or much of a single area that
animals can be in and safe. And so I think you've
got to ask yourself the question. You know, it's
great, it's wonderful, absolutely fantastic to
save the geography, but you also have to protect
the occupants of the geography to make a full
-blown ecosystem work. And so I think that's
where they fall down. I love the image of defending
the apartment block, the building itself, but
not the occupants. I think it's, you know, exactly
that. And what do you make then of environmental
causes that have to do with protecting some subspecies
of vegetation? Like I care about it. I will care
about it if it has an impact on the fauna, like
an insect, a butterfly, something like that.
But if it doesn't, then why should we care? I
think we should care about plants. They're super
important. in terms of the evolution of an ecosystem
the provision of food and shelter and all that
sort of stuff to species that we don't even know
about like various types of insects and stuff.
So I think it's really important where it becomes
a problem is the where animals have been indigenous
in the area and plants have been indigenous in
the area and the area is evolving. an unmanaged
ecosystem just evolving on its own, and the animals
eat the plants, I think that's the way it is.
But you see on Middle Island, Middle Island is
part of a broader ecosystem that doesn't include
most of Canada. It's just we're on the edge of
it, the Carolinian biosphere. And so the plants
on Middle Island are Carolinian. And Canada considers
them endangered because they're in Canada, and
they're not considering them as part of the biosphere.
If you looked at the plants that they are trying
to protect from the cormorants in the biosphere,
they're not endangered at all. And so why are
we going through this massive, cruel killing
program to save plants that are not endangered?
And I think we have to figure out now how we
look at an evolving ecosystem. Because plants
are going to disappear. We're talking about,
you know, the planet warming. We're talking about
fires. We're talking about, you know, floods.
We're talking about huge ice things, wind, you
know, tornadoes and stuff. All of our ecosystem
is going to evolve and change. And we need to
allow the plants and the animals to begin to
change what they need to change in order to survive
the warming planet. and instead you know we say
no this plant we have to protect these birds
we have to kill these deer we have to get rid
of you know these coyotes have to go all that
sort of stuff and without recognizing and without
even acknowledging this tremendous change that's
beginning and coming and you know going to be
overwhelming to many species and you know the
species that can accommodate to it are the species
that are going to survive. Yeah, we're still
killing polar bears. They're still, you know,
you can go up and kill a, you have to go through
a process, but you can kill a polar bear when
we know that their ecosystem is going. Are they
going to survive or not? We don't know, but we're
not giving them the best chance possible to try
and survive through that because we think it's
okay to take them and use their pelts. So I sort
of think we have not in any way engaged in the
reality of global warming, changes to the ecosystem,
impacts on animals that we don't like and animals
that we do like. I don't know. I just think human
beings have to wake up and begin to be more inclusive
and sensitive to broader species in the world.
Yes. right on. And I guess to close this conversation
about wildlife, there are parks, national parks
in Canada that are protected. But nowadays, you
know, I'm wondering if that protection is really
that established? Like, what does it mean that
this piece of land is protected? And am I right
to be to be skeptical and I guess I could, you
know, tell the story of the place where I live.
There was a wetland, you know, location and it
was understood that this place was protected,
but yet, you know, there was a vote with the
city council and they changed the status of that
land. And now they're building apartment complex
on on on those wetlands. And so is it really
protected? And federally, it's legislatively
protected. That doesn't mean that, you know,
it's how you interpret, interpret the protection.
But generally speaking, the the parks that have
been the parks and Reserves are generally protected
from things like development, encroachment, all
that sort of stuff. There was a discussion, in
fact, in Jasper, around Jasper National Park,
there was a possible ask of the federal government,
could they build in the park and replace the
houses that had been burnt down in the fire that
went through last year? And as far as I can tell
so far, the answer has been no. and it won't
happen but you look at you look at those two
major parks in Alberta and they have a golf course
and they have hotels and they have this and I
think they were probably taken over early on
in the whole process trying to protect from further
development which they've been able to do but
you know I think they're probably protected where
it isn't protected. Wetlands are a real issue
across the country. And they're the lifeblood
of our ecosystems. And they, of course, house
many, many, many wild animals, wild insects,
wild everything. And they're critically important
to the health of the ecosystem. And yet they
are considered to be Swamps is what we used to
call them and to be drained and to and to be
used for development and you know, that's happening
all across the country. There's a wonderful person
in Alberta whose name just escapes me at the
moment. I'll think about it, but she have of
course advocates for wetlands and advocates for
not trapping beaver to allow the wetlands to
occur and And so, you know, it's just an indication
about how critical it is and how often communities
ask for a redefinement of what a wetland is so
that they can develop it. And I have to say,
many of the environmentalists are on the right
side of that issue and have fought hard to protect
wetlands. We worked on one with the city of Montreal
a while ago, and the city bought the land, ultimately,
and so that part of the wetland is protected,
but I think there's development occurring in
other parts of it, so who knows how that will
ultimately end, but I think the more parks we
get, the more land we get under control of the
federal government, And we'll see what Carney
does, but I think the more land will actually
have protected. Not not perfectly, but better
than just sitting there. So Liz, we mentioned
how your work is important and this is something
I, you know, since the first time I met you and
we had the conversation, my my thinking of animal
advocacy. and how to best help animals and stop
this madness has evolved. And now I'm on the
same page as you are about the political stuff.
And, and so, you know, what can we do to support
your efforts? What can we do to support the efforts
of the animal protection party? Yeah. I guess
there's a couple of things. I would, once the
election, let's say the election, okay, so we'll
deal with the election first. I think you should
go and meet with the candidates in your area
and introduce yourself and say you're gonna be
back. You wanna talk to them about animal issues
and you're hoping that as it goes along that
they would be willing to actually introduce.
a private members bill or actually if they're
in the government get the government to introduce
a bill on whatever issue you want to talk about.
If you want a little bit more support in that
area you might want to go out and do a bit of
canvassing for a candidate of your choice. Even
if they're not the animal protection party, which
they won't be because we're not bringing that
many candidates, it's really important to get
a feel for how politics works. what's the wheeling
and dealing behind the scenes, who owes what
who to whom, all that sort of stuff is important
and making that personal connection with the
person who gets elected in your area so that
when something comes up you can phone that person
up get a meeting with them and talk to them about
your concerns about whatever the government's
doing or your support about whatever the government's
doing. So that I would It's four years, it'll
be four, if we get a majority government, it'll
be four years till the next election. I would
urge people who are vegetarian and vegan across
the country to begin to do a little bit of research
into how to become a candidate. It's our goal
to run more candidates. We've been up to about
20 at one time. um but uh you know it was quick
this time so it was we were unable to get to
that number but if we have time to plan um to
consider running for the party it's a fantastic
way you get go to all candidates meetings you
get to talk about your issue nobody else at the
count candidates meeting is going to talk about
your issue but you can i have one on um mid -april
uh that i'm going to go to and you know I'm going
to talk about all the animal issues and you know
because the liberals in a way did a pretty good
job low -hanging fruit but you know they did
it they got the cosmetic bill through and they
did and some of the pesticide stuff we got through
so they did some really good stuff but it wasn't
clearly enough. It's obviously, you know, when
you start digging into animal issues, it's a
tsunami of issues to try and deal with. So looking
at the issues that are most important and moving
those forward, you know, it's harder to talk
about the animal agriculture because of the size
of the industry, but there are alternative groups
out there. There are vegan environmental agriculture
people. And so we can begin to talk about how
to, as a party and as a candidate, how to shift
from the very damaging and cruel animal agriculture
to a vegan agriculture. And it's much kinder
to the land. You don't have to use as many pesticides
and all that sort of stuff. the party and the
platform, which I think is pretty fulsome, to
advocate the issues that you are interested in.
And if you would be interested in being a candidate
for years coming, maybe do some research on on
how to do that. A lot of people find it pretty
intimidating. And then it is because you got
to get up and talk to an audience that isn't
particularly sympathetic about your issues. But
it's a really, really, really good test. about
how well you are able to put your issues forward
and whether you can convince people in the audience
that you have a case. Let me ask you a question.
I actually wrote an article about social media
and how social media should not become the centerpiece
or the focus of animal, you know, animal rights
activists. And, you know, I actually took as
an example, the Animal Protection Party of Canada,
you have, you know, hundreds of followers on
social media, yet it is difficult to transform
that and to convert that into candidates in the
field. So maybe I would love to hear your thoughts
on that. Why is it so difficult to get people
who are sympathizers to animal protection organizations
to do something out of the social media world?
I think it's become a world where you don't have
to do a whole lot of work. And you see something,
you post it, and you get a bunch of people commenting
on it, and you comment back. And you know, you
can, it's very passive, you can do it. Doesn't
take a whole lot of work or thinking. And that's
why I think it's really difficult for people
to understand, how do you get legislation changed?
from the outside and from the inside. How do
you do it? What is the mechanism by which you
lobby? Who do you talk to? How often do you go
there? How much do you pressure those people?
What kind of information do you put in front
of them? If you're going to promote an issue,
you better have it to a politician, you better
have it well researched because if you present
them with something like, I don't like what somebody's
doing, that's not going to cut it and you will
probably be ignored and you'll wonder why. And
you need to make, I think you need to make, and
this may be difficult for people, but I think
you need to make a really deep commitment to,
if you're interested in an issue, to doing the
proper research, to getting all of the scientific
information lined up, to do all that kind of
work so that when you go, if you decide to go,
to your member of parliament or member of provincial
parliament to present your case that you have
it well prepared and you're you know skilled
and the person can see that you know what you're
talking about and that takes a lot of work and
often people don't either want to do that feel
inadequate for doing it. I don't quite know.
But I do know we've had we have a couple of candidates
that have just jumped in. They've just decided
I'm going to do it. One in Newfoundland and one
out in BC. And it's a hard you know, you can
imagine being an animal rights person in Newfoundland
where they have the seal hunt, how difficult
that is. And, and yet, you know, he's going to
do it. and so I think you just and and he's and
they're learning they're both learning really
fast you know what arguments to put forward what
not all that sort of stuff and of course myself
and my colleague Barry Mackay are there to help
them um but uh it means that these are people
who are willing to actually do the work and I
think that makes all the difference in the world
and we need more people like that And I don't
know what it takes to get people out of Facebook
and TikTok and Snapchat and whoever else they're
on to actually begin to do the kind of work that
needs to be done to change the legislation because
that's where the change is going to happen. What
about donations? How much can we give? I think
there is a ceiling to political donations. Yeah,
there's a ceiling. Yeah. It was, it's like $1
,725 to $1 ,750. I'm just not quite sure it changes.
It goes up by $25 every year. So you could become
a month, people could become a monthly donor
and make it the $1 ,700 and whatever it is over
a 12 month period. So it isn't onerous. Some
people just write us a check for the entire amount.
You get a very, just for people who need tax
receipts, you get an extremely good receipt from
Elections Canada for donating to our party. And
the sweet spot, if you give $400, you get $325
or $350 back. I can't remember, but most of the
donation you get back directly off your income
tax. So it's a really good deal. Yeah, anybody
who wants to join the Animal Protection Party,
please come forward. We'd love to talk to you.
I'll probably call you personally if you give
a donation and it would be fantastic. And do
we have to be Canadian to make a donation? You
have to be a Canadian citizen or there's one
other landed immigrant or something. I think
you have to be a Canadian citizen to to vote.
I don't think you have to be a Canadian citizen
to join the party. No. So, Liz, I think we covered
well the topics at hand, the issues that needed
to be addressed surrounding this election and
the state of animal rights in Canada. Did you
want to add something before we stop the recording?
Yeah, I would just say to everybody who's listening
I understand how hard it is to do this work to
look at the images and to not get discouraged
and not feel angry and not You know feel unable
to do anything and I just ask you to sit back
a little bit and Reconsider the animals that
you watched had to undergo that kind of cruelty
But if they encouraged you to become part of
the movement and to fight hard for animal rights,
then they didn't die in vain and I would urge
you to sit back, reconsider and join the movement
and join the party. Whichever you want to do
and fight for the animals because they sure need
our help. Thank you everyone for listening. I
kindly invite you to share this podcast with
the vegans you know. Let's encourage more people
to take action. Again, thank you so much for
caring and I will see you next Tuesday for a
new episode.