Business
The Leaked Conversation at the heart of the federal Gun Buyback Boondoggle
The federal government is pushing ahead with a gun buyback program that will cost taxpayers $742 million dollars. This program will create a legal conundrum in Canada as the government has created a class of lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding gun owners. These are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who purchased and store their guns legally. Mark Carney’s government has declared certain types of guns illegal, but law enforcement agencies across the country have said they won’t help the government round up the guns. So legal gunowners will now in effect be criminals even though they’ve never committed a crime.
The man in charge of this file is Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree.
From Conservative Party Communications
Below is the full transcript of the leaked conversation between Gary Anandasangaree and his tenant, where he revealed that he doesn’t believe in his own program.
Gary: I’ve got to tell you something else. You may not be happy with it. We’re launching a gun buyback plan Tuesday.
Tenant: Yeah, I know.
Gary: We’re not adding anything to it.
Tenant: You don’t need to add to it, you’re already taking everything.
Gary: What was that?
Tenant: I thought it was voluntary.
Gary: It is voluntary.
Tenant: So let me ask you this.
Gary: OK
Tenant: If it’s a voluntary buyback, some people call it confiscation.
Gary: Yeah
Tenant: So I have a couple of options. My option is to go have it deactivated. [Yeah], at my cost.
Gary: You’ll get compensation for that.
Tenant: Okay, so I’ll get compensation for deactivation so I basically have a firearm that would never be able to be used again. It’s basically an ornament. [Yeah], okay. Two is to turn it into the federal government. [Yes], or whatever agency.
Gary: It is easy, yeah, who’s collecting, a collection agency as well.
Tenant: Yeah, right for what compensation? So what’s written in, so let’s say one of my AR’s, they’re gonna be, I don’t recall the value, I think it’s around $1200 bucks, somewhere about there. But I have receipts where I purchased it at a far greater cost, and I have other receipts for, maybe I changed the bolt carrier group or a trigger or anything like that, there’s no compensation for that.
Gary: No, not for that.
Tenant: We’re just saying this is the blanket [Yeah] what you’re getting.
Gary: It’s not a flat fee though, it’s not a flat compensation, right? It’s not like it’s $400. It’s every every model.
Tenant: Make and model has a dollar value.
Gary: Exactly.
Tenant: So like my Sig and 400, I think it’s around $1,200. But I paid like $2,400 for it, or $2,200. So I’m still losing money.
Gary: Probably. Yeah, right. The idea is that, look, they’re already prohibited, right?
Tenant: Well, they’re not. They’ve never, so by the OIC in 2000, [yes], right with the stroke of a pen at the time the Prime Minister Trudeau says these are weapons of war, there’s no use for them within Canadian society, [right] this all came after the mass shooting in Nova Scotia, who was an illegal firearms person, correct?
Gary: Had mental health issues.
Tenant: But he had illegal firearms. He was able to purchase a retired police vehicle, correct? Right? [Yeah]. He made a police…..let me finish.
Gary: Don’t, don’t try, don’t ask me to explain the logic to you on this. Okay. Like it’s…
Tenant: But we’re not the problem Gary.
Gary: I realize that….
Tenant: So how many gang bangers? [Yeah] Right? Are running around that TPS, and every police force in Canada is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, in prosecuting people, investigating people, that are on the illegal side.
Gary: I get it.
Tenant: If I don’t have a piece of paper going to my gun range, I could be five years in prison, for a piece of paper. These guys, I hate to say it with your catch and release policies, these guys are caught, might spend a couple days in jail, get a bail hearing, and out they go. But you’re taking stuff away from people that aren’t the problem.
Gary: Yeah. Listen, it’s voluntary. That’s the only thing that’s….
Tenant: It’s not voluntary. So what’s the third option? So I deactivate, I turn them in, what’s the third option?
Gary: Third option is you don’t do either.
Tenant: And? Then what does that make me become?
Gary: Then it’s up to the local police.
Tenant: So what does that make me become? What’s that? A criminal?
Gary: If the police enforce it, yes.
Tenant: Well of course the police are going to enforce it because you’re going to mandate.
Gary: It’s already in the criminal code. It’s there.
Tenant: It’s already written in the criminal code. So you’re basically saying, if I don’t deactivate or return them at a loss, I’m going to be a criminal.
Gary: In your case, what are your losses? You tell me. I’ll personally offset you.
Tenant: That’s not the point Gary. I appreciate that, but it’s not the point. The point is, since 2000, my firearms, I have a huge safe here. My firearms are locked up [right]. I reload, I make my own ammo…
Gary: What do you use it for?
Tenant: I go to the range and shoot, okay. That’s it, right? My other firearms I have, I hunt, right? I have my, I have my PAL, obviously you don’t. I have my RPAL as well. I have to say, whoever that Conservative guy was, when you’re in the House, you were first in the role, you didn’t want to get it.
Gary: That was bad, I know that. But it’s three weeks on the job, man. I never….
Tenant: What do you know about the system now? If you don’t mind me asking?
Gary: I know a lot more. I’m not an expert on this, right? I’m not an expert.
Tenant: So I understand when you let the genie out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put that cap back on the genie.
Gary: I get it
Tenant: And nobody wants – the government definitely doesn’t want people to say hey we’re turning things back or the special interest groups saying hey you’re going back. Nope, it doesn’t matter what happens in the world, the van incident on the street, right? We’re not banning white vans, or renting, or banning people renting vehicles. [Yeah] Impaired drivers, we’re not, okay, we’ll take your vehicle off the road for a certain day, we’ll suspend you for a year and you’ll pay a fine. [right], I just don’t understand that legal firearms owners are a very, very small problem. And I’m going to say this: are there legal firearms owners out there that have committed acts of domestic violence or suicide? Absolutely, it happens. And it happens, doesn’t matter what it is [yeah] whether it’s a van, whether it’s a firearm, whether it’s a knife. People, people with mental health issues will do things. [yeah] But you’re gonna roll out this confiscation, I’m gonna call it, on Tuesday, I think you said. And what’s the timeline?
Gary: It’s a pilot in, um, god where is it, Cape Breton, right?
Tenant: Okay, well that police force said yes to it. But the OPP said no. [Yeah]. Toronto police said no.
Gary: The Toronto police hasn’t said anything yet.
Tenant: Okay, I just know some people in Toronto police. [Yeah, yeah] They’re on the fence, [Yeah] but, anyway, even if the Chiefs of Police Association are saying this is not going to have a meaningful impact, probably less than half a percent of legal people. That probably shouldn’t happen, right? I agree with that one hundred percent. I think, so I have a firearms license [Yeah], (Partner) does not. [Right. Right] She can’t, she doesn’t have a combination to the safe, she doesn’t have access to anything. I think if the government would have mandated safe storage laws, like way above and beyond what we have, like I can have a firearm, as long as it’s not loaded, doesn’t need a trigger lock, just leaning up against my wall, right? Provided it as a non-restricted, right? There’s no ammunition, not readily accessible. I think if you were mandated within whatever time frame that you must have a certified safe, has to meet certain standards, for you to have any restricted firearm, right? That way you eliminate someone breaking into my house, right? [yeah] and saying, “Oh, it’s just sitting here in a case. It’s locked.” [let me take that] But I could walk out the door with a case. If you mandated that, it would be a huge cost to a lot of us. I mean, I think a proper firearm safe is not cheap. Mine is like $7,500. I think they would have gone that way and saying to eliminate the potential of domestic violence issues and somebody having access to, or possible break and enters, and those criminals now taking your legal firearm and using it for illegal purposes. I think you would have had the firearms community on board with that. Ultimately, what the government has done in the last five years is made criminals out of the most vetted… I have a criminal background check on me every single day. If I get into an argument with (Partner), my firearms would be gone. [yeah] If I forget a piece of paper going to my range and I were to get stopped, right? I’m going to prison. [yeah] I have to leave my house, put myself in my truck, and I have to drive right from here, right to a range, I can’t stop for gas. That’s why I’m driving the Audi. So like I can’t even deviate, I can’t stop for gas, I can’t stop for lunch, because the law states I have to go from here to there, there and back. So, we’re not the problem. So, as the Minister of Public Safety, what do you think may have done that? I mean, it’s been rolled out anyways.
Gary: Look, I’ll tell you, if I were to redo this from the beginning, like I’m picking up where it was left off,
Tenant: But you have the power to roll it back.
Gary: But this is the mandate I was given by Carney to complete this.
Tenant: Yeah, ’cause you guys would look like fools rolling it and stepping back.
Gary: And not revisit this. That’s my objective, right? Just to put an end to this and move on with other additional criminal justice tools, including on bail, including on increasing penalties for people who have illegal and you know unlicensed firearms. So a range of things that we are already going to be doing,
Tenant: But this is not new. Because this has been happening over a decade.
Gary: I’ll tell you, going forward, it will be a different approach. This is completing something that was started five years ago that, you know, frankly..
Tenant: But as the minister, you could sit down with Mark and say, listen, there’s something, we need to address these core issues.
Gary: We’ve had all these conversations. Like I’ve had for the last four months, it’s been like constant, constant discussions on this to see what’s next, right? And the conclusion is let’s finish this because we committed to it in the campaign, like…
Tenant: But campaign promises have always been broken in the past.
Gary: I know.
Tenant: So why must you go through this one?
Gary: There is, look,
Tenant: Just say it.
Gary: The Quebec-
Tenant: You know it’s wrong.
Gary: Quebec, for example, is in a very different place than Ontario, right?
Tenant: We’re talking about Canada, it’s a federal, it’s not provincial.
Gary: I get it. Quebec is in a different place than other parts of Canada, right? And this is something that very much a big, big, big deal for many of the Quebec electorate that voted for us, right? And that’s one of the major things. I think it’s, I saw, I’m sure you’ve seen these articles where people said, you know, this is one of the things we should not execute, like as a change from Trudeau’s policies, but we’ve made the decision to go ahead.
Tenant: You know something? You have a minority government right now. And there’s a lot of moving pieces on the chessboard. Absolutely. We’re worried about the longest undefended border between Canada and the United States. And we know where the firearms are coming from. And more than 95% are traced back to….
Gary: The US, the US. Absolutely. 100%. 100%. Like I brought it up to Secretary Noem, I met her like, you know, like a week and a half ago in London, right? And they said, and she was actually surprised because she didn’t know.
Tenant: People, evil people, are going to do evil things. And there’s nothing that you or I or anyone else can do to prevent that, cause you can’t fix what you don’t know. Absolutely, 100%. But…
Gary: Listen, the thing that I can make to you, is that going forward you will have much better…
Tenant: No, you’re going to turn me into a criminal Gary, because you know I’m not gonna turn mine in. I’m telling you right now. I refused it.
Gary: Yeah and that’s fine. I’m not gonna argue with you on this.
Tenant: I mean, you’ll just send the police to my house.
Gary: I’m not gonna send the police to your house.
Tenant: Well, no, but the police will come to my house at some point, because what’s registered. They know who I am, they know where I live, they know where they are, they’re locked up in my safe, I’m gonna refuse to hand ’em in. They’re gonna come in, rip open my safe, right? Take those firearms and put me in handcuffs.
Gary: I doubt very much is going to go that far, like this.
Tenant: Absolutely it’s going to Gary because when you’ve given a mandate as the minister that these firearms are no longer allowed to be in these people’s possession. [Yeah] and you have…
Gary: Okay, I will come and bail you out if that happens. I will. You call me.
Tenant: I don’t want to be bailed out Gary. But now I have a criminal record. Now I have a criminal record. Are you gonna pardon me?
Gary: That I can’t, I don’t have the power to do that, but…
Tenant: But, but, I’m going to have a criminal record. Which means I’m going to lose my job,
Gary: It’s not going to go that far. Like, let’s be frank about this, right?
Tenant: I don’t know Gary. I don’t know.
Gary: Municipal, I just don’t think municipal police services have the resources to do this.
Tenant: Well, I mean, how many billions of dollars in debt are we? We’re just going to keep adding to the debt. How much do you guys think this is going to cost, realistically?
Gary: The budget for this was $742 million.
Tenant: $742 million, three-quarters of a billion dollars?
Gary: That was the budget.
Tenant: That’s their budget. So let’s double it. Let’s be honest.
Gary: No, no, we won’t go that far. We’re capping it. That’s it. We’re not…
Tenant: Oh, so let’s say you take the firearms you said in New Brunswick, [Yeah], You start with that. [Nova Scotia] Sorry, Nova Scotia, You start with them at whatever the cost that is, and you work across the country however way you want to roll the program. I mean Alberta, Danielle, she’s really telling you go “f” yourself. At one point you say, “Okay, that’s $750 million.” Sorry, do you say, “Okay, we ran out of money, so we’ll take yours, but you guys just don’t get….we ran out of money”
Gary: It’s a capped, it’s a capped buyback, right? It’s voluntary. It’s capped. It’s voluntary.
Tenant: How is it voluntary? I do not want to give it to you.
Gary: Okay, then that’s your prerogative, right?
Tenant: But the consequence for not following your directive, I have to go to jail.
Gary: If you want money back, then..
Tenant: I don’t want money back. I want what I legally can own. I’ve been able to use for years. I have no issues with the regulations surrounding them. So let’s look at my AR. It’s a .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle. I cannot use it for hunting. I can only use it at the range.
Gary: Lets go out, I have to get going soon.
Tenant: But I also have a .233 bolt-action rifle that I can use for hunting. It’s the exact same round, same velocity, they want to make it different, it’s the action, right? I’m limited to a five-round magazine. I’m limited to a five-round magazine on my bolt action. Nothing’s different. It’s a few bad actors who’ve done really horrible things, and do we need to tighten up, you know, the PAL locks?
Gary: Listen, I told you, if I were to redo this from scratch, I would have a very different approach to this.
Tenant: What do you think you should implement? If you could start from scratch, what would be the first thing you would do?
Gary: What I would do is, like, and it’s going to happen, Fraser’s already working on it, right? So I think on firearms possession, without a license, the illegal firearms when we talk about that kind of thing. Anyone caught with it or caught close to it should face jail time.
Tenant: Where are you gonna house all these guys Gary? You don’t have the space. So let’s start there. So that’s not going to work.
Gary: So that’s one of the things we need to do, right?
Tenant: So we’re talking a twenty-year term to start building all these prisons.
Gary: No, it’s not.
Tenant: But to house these people?
Gary: No, but right now they’re not, the consequences are not there for them, right?
Tenant: How about this? For the JPs that let these guys out on bail repeatedly, how about we hold the JPs accountable? But you can’t because under C-75 you said ‘least onerous restrictions’.
Gary: I, I those are being changed. Those will be changed.
Tenant: Yeah, but how many strikes do we have to give them before we actually do something?
Gary: That’s going to be changed.
Tenant: Right, so I know if I leave my house with a firearm and whether it’s restricted or non-restricted, if I don’t follow the storage laws and transportation laws, right? I go to jail. Now will I get released? Most likely, most likely, I don’t have a criminal history, it was an error on my part, but I know the rules and regulations…
Gary: How do you make sure this is happening every year for something like this, for not having the paperwork?
Tenant: That I don’t know. I’m going to say very few because…
Gary: I’ll get those numbers for you.
Tenant: I’m going to say very few because we know what we have to do and we know the consequences by not following everything from A to Z, right? No, if I walk into my house with a firearm, I grab a shotgun and I’m just going to walk to my house, I don’t have it in a case, most likely someone can call the police and say, “Hey, there’s a guy walking around the neighbourhood with a firearm.” They’re going to come and investigate and say, “Hey, there’s nothing, you’re legitimate, you’re legal, we have your paperwork, you got your PAL, you’re doing everything.” But ecause you’ve created a concern in the community, maybe I should charge you for that.
Gary: Even though you’re licensed and everything.
Tenant: Yeah, but nowhere in storage or the transportation laws say, I have to have it in case. Right? Now, I don’t… When I move firearms from my safe to my truck, I bring my truck up here. Right? Number one, I don’t want people knowing what I have, right? The less people know what I have, the less people gonna say, “Hey, that guy’s got guns, let’s go breaking into his house.” We have to be smart as firearms owners
Gary: Listen, man, I gotta get going.
Tenant: All right.
Gary: Because I have to pick up my daughter. Listen, I appreciate you. I will, um…
Tenant: Not looking forward to your announcement on Tuesday.
Gary: I know, I know. Cut me some slack, okay?
Gary: Well, something Gary, hold your feet to the fire. We are.
Gary: Yeah, certainly.
Tenant: And, right? I mean, we are. Ultimately on election time, that’s when it comes down to it.
Gary: We had one four months ago.
Tenant: Yep.
Gary: Take care.
Tenant: Alright, drive.
Gary: Cheers.
Tenant: Take care.
Gary: Thank you.
Tenant: Alright, appreciate it, and we’ll talk soon.
Gary: I’ll follow up with you.
Tenant: Thanks Gary. Thanks Gary.
Business
CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition
“Private” sector will find it more difficult to compete. Plus! Outrage over manipulation of Trump speech and the common error of burying balance
These are happy days at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
With the threat of a “defund the CBC” Conservative government fading ever faster in its rearview mirror, the nation’s publicly-funded commercial news and entertainment corporation (aka public broadcaster) is poised to take an even larger share of the market thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Sure, tens of thousands of public sector employees may be about to lose their jobs, services face cutbacks and the feds might be rewriting collective bargaining rules in their favour. But as we learned Nov. 4, the CBC will – as promised in last spring’s election – get a $150 million top up to the $1.4 billion Parliament already allocates to it. There’s every chance that means it will be an even more aggressive competitor in the news market for viewers, listeners, readers and advertisers. One in three working journalists in the country already work for CBC/Radio Canada. If an 11 percent hike in funding is reflected in newsroom job growth, that number could move closer to 37 per cent.
Federal funding for “private sector” news organizations has remained flat (with the exception of a $12 million boost to a fund introduced as Covid relief). That means the news industry playing field has been tilted even more in the CBC’s favour, making it harder for outlets that are not the CBC to compete or even survive. There will be less opportunity for news innovators and increased private sector job losses will lead to demands for larger subsidies from industry lobby groups such as News Media Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Good news for the CBC means bad news for others. This is either a really bad mistake by Carney or, making the CBC even more dominant as a news source (it has the most popular domestic website) is part of his plan.
Further brightening the outlook for journos at the Mother Corp was the news from CBC President Marie-Philippe Bouchard that there’s no need to investigate antisemitism within its ranks and, while its relationship with rural and western Canadians could be better, it’s unlikely the status quo will be disrupted. Editor in Chief Brodie Fenlon confirmed that conclusion by testifying before a Senate committee that the CBC’s newsrooms are the least biased he’s ever worked in.
Yup, life at the Mother Corp’s looking rosier than ever.
Perhaps as an unintended metaphor for CBC’s growth at private media’s expense, Postmedia’s Brian Passifiume illustrated his relative poverty by jocularly complaining about the lack of a free lunch for those within the budget lockup.
Time was when journos would refuse a free lunch from a subject of their coverage. Now they complain publicly about not getting one.
Speaking of the budget, a couple of items caught the eye.
One was the jaw-dropping Tweet by the Hill Times’ Stu Benson noting how journalists were partying post-budget at Ottawa’s trendy Metro Brasserie with government MPs and bigwigs. It, accompanied by photos, stated:
“Hundreds of politicos, journalists, and libatious Liberals joined Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne for a post-budget victory lap at the @MetroBrasserie_ on Nov. 4 at @EarnscliffeCda X @politicoottawa’s”
In response, Twitter sage Norman Spector shared Benson’s post and wrote:
“How it works in Ottawa: Politicos, journalists and Liberals at a post-budget victory lap – a shindig co-sponsored by a lobbying firm.”
And media wonder why so many no longer have faith in them?
The other item involved what is termed an “advance” story posted by the CBC. The problem wasn’t that the story failed to contain all the key elements and expected perspectives. It did. The problem was that none of those were introduced at all until the 10th paragraph and you have to go another 28 paragraphs or so before the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP are even mentioned, making the piece read like a government news release. This is a common error in newsrooms where staff should know by now that most people consume news by reading a headline and – give or take – the top six paragraphs before moving on.
So, unless reporters introduce balance within the first three paragraphs, most people will be unaware that alternative views exist.
CBC is hardly alone in making this error, although its dominance in the market enhances its impact.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
During my spells in Ottawa – briefly within the Parliamentary Press Gallery and longer at the CRTC – I was struck by how little so many reporters working there know about how government and its institutions actually work.
Most, in my recollection, cover only the drama, intrigue and theatre of politics. For too many, the daily routine consists of scanning news releases, phoning their contacts and watching Question Period on CPAC before venturing (maybe) across Wellington Street (is it still called that?) for a scrum or two.
What most don’t bother with at all are some of the most important aspects of the machinery of government such as the work of committees, the regulations that follow passage of legislation or, as Blacklock’s Reporter Publisher Holly Doan pointed out last week, the estimates that follow a budget.
These are important matters and the lack of coverage by subsidized media leaves the public ill-informed. For instance, as the Liberals move to buy off opposition MPs to form a majority government people did not vote for, they will also be able to claim control over committees.
So, as the nation morphs inexorably into a permanent one-party state, the absence of coverage in these areas will be increasingly evident. If you want to be a fully informed citizen, find a news outlet that covers these important matters and subscribe.
A little more than a year ago, people were being fired at CTV for manipulating quotes from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
That practice delivered an even more devastating impact on public trust in journalism when it was revealed that the BBC program Panorama had blended two phrases from US President Donald Trump. As The Standard reported:
“In a clip from a Panorama programme, broadcast before the election, Trump appears to tell supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol…and I’ll be there with you. And we fight, we fight like hell.
“But the words were taken from different sections of his speech, nearly an hour apart. In the original footage, his language is more restrained: “We’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women,” adding his supporters will march “peacefully and patriotically” to make their voices heard.”
Opposition MPs are demanding an inquiry. In this clip, GB News takes no prisoners. Reports Saturday indicate the chair of the BBC would be officially apologizing.
Michael Geist is not a journalist. He’s a law professor and internet expert. And his coverage of the budget – in a Substack note – was a fabulous example of the importance of a free and open internet as a source of valuable information about important matters overlooked by mainstream media. He said:
“Canadian government departments are big believers that AI will be the source of reducing expenses. Finance, Justice, CRTC, Fisheries, CRA, ESDC all cite new efficiencies from AI to explain how they will meet the 15% spending reduction target in the budget.”
And, as I wrote in The Line a couple of months back:
“Two years ago, the Liberals were hoping to claim they’d saved legacy media from Big Tech. All they really did was stake it for AI to devour.”
But you won’t read that in legacy media. Just here. Tell your friends.
Oh and one last treat for those of you who enjoy a snappy front page:
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Agriculture
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust for Ostriches: Part 2
I published an article about how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) failed to follow the science when trying to justify their horrific extermination of hundreds of healthy ostriches on a farm in a remote location in British Columbia, Canada. I addressed their misleading claim that it was necessary to safeguard human and animal health. Both science and plain common sense demonstrated that their claim was misinformation.
COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
How legitimate is their claim that killing was necessary to preserve the export market?
Now, I cannot allow the CFIA’s second misleading rationale for slaughtering the ostriches to go unchallenged. Specifically, the CFIA claimed that the killing was also required to safeguard Canada’s almost billion-dollar poultry export market. The issue is that exports can be suspended if the policies of the World Organization for Animal Health are contravened. But what the CFIA failed to disclose to the public was that our country is not considered a single geographical zone when it comes to these policies. Rather, it is divided into numerous zones.
When looking at the World Organization for Animal Health’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 10.4.3 jumps out as being particularly important in this case. It states:
“A country or zone may be considered free from high pathogenicity avian influenza when” “absence of infection with high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses, based on surveillance […] has been demonstrated in the country or zone for the past 12 months”.
During this twelve-month timeframe, exports from anywhere within the affected zone would presumably have to be suspended and biosecurity polices adhered to. Indeed, this could be problematic if it meant shutting down the export market of an entire country for an entire year. But that was not the case here. Consider these facts:
- The farmers at the heart of this case had no need to maintain an export market within their region for the viability of their farming operation.
- Biosecurity protocols imposed by the CFIA were already being adhered to.
- It is my understanding that the ostrich farm was isolated within a remote designated zone. Therefore, suspending exports from that zone would not risk harming export potential for other farmers. Even if the zone did incorporate far-away farms, the CFIA could have done the right thing and attempted negotiating redrawing of boundaries with the World Organization for Animal Health to prevent or minimize indirect harm to other farms.
In other words, the ostriches could have been tested after the flock recovered from the disease outbreak, with testing ending twelve months later. If these tests were consistently negative, the World Organization for Animal Health would have officially declared the zone housing the ostriches to be virus-free and it would lift its moratorium on exports from that isolated zone.
My assessment is that this would have allowed the ostriches to live, with no substantial negative impact on the ability to export poultry products from Canada.
Further, common sense also places the CFIA’s rationale into question. Their battle with the farmers took place over the better part of a year while they apparently ignored this subsection of the policy, yet Canada’s poultry export market continued unhindered.
So I am curious as to why the CFIA has been so hell-bent on killing healthy ostriches to purportedly preserve Canada’s export market. Why didn’t they advocate for the farmers from the very beginning by leaning on clauses like Article 10.4.3 to negotiate with the World Organization for Animal Health? I thought that government agencies were supposed to serve the public that pays them. I saw no evidence of the CFIA trying to help the farmers. Instead they seemed focused on doing everything but try to help them. The optics would have been much better for the CFIA if they could produce documentation showing that they rigorously negotiated on behalf of the farmers about Article 10.4.3 with the World Organization for Animal Health but the latter blatantly refused to honour the requests.
Ultimately, it seems to me that the CFIA not only failed to follow the science, but it was also selective in its interpretation and defense of the policies.
It also makes me wonder if Article 10.4.3 had anything to do with why the CFIA was so adamant about not allowing the birds to be tested almost one year after the outbreak. To have demonstrated an absence of the virus almost one year later would have shown that they were on the cusp of being able to use Article 10.4.3 to restore Canada’s coveted country-wide avian influenza-free status.
By the way, all countries claiming to have avian influenza-free status are misleading people. Avian influenza viruses are endemic. They are carried and transmitted by wild birds, especially waterfowl, that migrate around the globe.
The most hypocritical aspect of this is that the people responsible for the deaths of hundreds of valuable, healthy ostriches that were almost certainly virus-free (prove me wrong with data), likely let their own kids play on beaches and parks that are routinely populated by ducks, geese, and seagulls, and stipple-painted with the feces of these birds that serve as natural reservoirs for the virus.
All hail the hypocritical virtue signaling!
To be consistent with their reasoning, every person that supported what the CFIA did to the healthy ostriches should never step foot on any premises frequented by wild birds.
COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
Business1 day agoOttawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits
-
Energy1 day agoThawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory
-
International24 hours agoBBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology
-
National2 days agoNew Canadian bill would punish those who deny residential indigenous schools deaths claims
-
International1 day agoLarge US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security
-
Agriculture1 day agoThe Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science
-
armed forces2 days agoThe Liberal Government Just Betrayed Veterans. Again. Right Before Remembrance Day.
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. urges global health authorities to remove mercury from all vaccines






