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.