We conducted this research on behalf of Animal Justice. More information about this organisation's work for animals is available here on their website.
Download PDF Version
Executive summary
Canada is a unique case study exemplifying the effects of industry capture and protectionism. The Canadian animal agriculture industry has been effective at maintaining beneficial agricultural policies and limiting progress towards better welfare and conditions for farmed animals. This makes Canada a country of contradictions, with widespread and growing interest from the public for progress for animals (1) alongside abjectly cruel and unnecessary practices such as seal hunting (2), fur farming (3) and the use of cages in agriculture (4). A lot of work remains to bring animal protection legislation in line with public expectations and the interests of animals.
For Government and Civil society actors striving for change, it is important to focus efforts on the species, campaigns, and policies that will bring about the biggest improvements. With this in mind, we have identified three main priority reforms. All of these asks are high-priority and would potentially make highly impactful campaigns.
Ban or limit unnecessary fish stocking: Fish stocking is undertaken for two purposes in Canada, firstly for recreational purposes and secondly for commercial purposes with approximately 40 to 100 million and 370 million stocked each year respectively. Fish are raised for this purpose in hatcheries and then released into the wild, often dying shortly after. Only a tiny percentage are ever recaptured. Although these are intended for conservation, in many cases they have adverse effects on the wild salmon (5); the broader ecological effects are frequently recognized as neutral or even negative, making the practice a vast waste of life and resources. Instead, the net result is, at best, a subsidy for the fishing and angling industry at the cost of the environment and taxpayers.
Work on regulatory capture and code reforms: There are strong indications of regulatory capture (undue industry influence) in Canadian animal agriculture. This campaign would challenge the legitimacy of industry self-policing, focusing in particular on the strongest manifestation of this, the industry lead codes of practice.
Cage-free campaigns for layer hens: Canada lags behind any comparable country, including the UK, EU and even the US, on its continued use of caged systems (6). The scientific consensus is clear: cage-free systems are “clearly superior to conventional cages and furnished cages even soon after a transition to cage-free environments” (7). Unfortunately, this means such a basic reform remains a high priority for animals in Canada.
We also highlight another promising reform called the Better Chicken Commitment (“BCC”). Which, while a significant improvement, but is less tractable than the main priority reformsIt would still be worth pursuing during particular policy windows or if you are well placed to make progress on this issue.
Ultimately these priorities should be selected and adapted based on the political landscape at the time and the position of the advocate or group. If you are interested in advocating for farmed animal welfare in Canada and none of these campaign opportunities are suitable for your circumstances, then we encourage you to reach out to Animal Ask. We have additional research on a wider variety of options not covered in this report due to their lower priority.
Legal context
Canada is a federation, with legislative authority split between the federal government, and the provinces and territories. (Canada comprises ten provinces and three territories. The provinces exercise powers in their own right by virtue of the constitution, while the territories exercise delegated powers granted by the federal government. However, there is little farming in the territories, located in Canada’s far north, which comprise less than 1% of the country’s population (8).
Under section 95 of Canada’s constitution, the federal and provincial governments are both permitted to legislate respecting agriculture, although federal agricultural laws will be considered paramount and provinces may not pass laws that conflict with federal measures (9). In practice, provincial governments have largely fallen into the role of regulating the activities that occur daily on farms. The federal government regulates the transport and slaughter of farmed animals, as well as animal health, and trade.
At the federal level, these include the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibits anyone from willfully causing or (recklessly) permitting animals to suffer unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. This applies to all animals, including those on farms; however farms are seldom if ever held accountable for the mistreatment of animals under the Criminal Code. Also at the federal level, the Health of Animals Act (1990) protects Canadian livestock from infectious diseases that would threaten both animal and human health, as well as the transportation of those animals and Canada's trade in livestock. Finally, the Meat Inspection Act regulates the humane transport of animals and the humane treatment of food animals in federal abattoirs (9). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) enforces both the Health of Animals Act (1990) and the Meat Inspection Act.
Simultaneously, each province and territory has its own legislation, so that the level of protection conferred to animals varies depending on the province/territory in which they reside. Still, there are some common elements. All provinces have general animal welfare acts that apply to all animals, including farm animals. [1] For example, Alberta has the Animal Protection Act and Animal Protection Regulation. These acts typically prohibit causing distress to animals. Some provinces have additional legislation specific to livestock or certain farming practices. Penalties for violating these laws also vary by province but can include fines and imprisonment (9).
Additionally, codes of practice, while not legally binding in most provinces, play a role in setting standards for farm animal care. These codes are developed by an industry-led, non-governmental body called the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC). The codes can influence how provincial animal welfare laws are interpreted and applied, and specifically, which practices will be deemed exempt from provincial laws against causing distress. The Codes are not legally binding but at least one code is referenced in the animal protection regulations of six of the provinces to establish accepted industry practices (10). The four provinces which do not reference the codes at all, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia account for a large fraction of total animal production. British Columbia, which references the Dairy Cattle Code, has a comparatively small cattle industry as production is concentrated in Alberta.
Table: Features of the major provincial/territorial animal protection laws in Canada (9)
Province | Legislation | Code reference? | Human Population (Million) |
Ontario | Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | None | 15,996,989 |
Quebec | Quebec Animal Welfare and Safety Act +Quebec Animal Health Protection Act | None | 9,030,684 |
British Columbia | British Columbia Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | NFACC Dairy Cattle Code | 5,646,467 |
Alberta | Alberta Animal Protection Act | CCAC guides | 4,849,906 |
Manitoba | Manitoba Animal Care Act | NFACC codes CCAC guides | 1,484,135 |
Saskatchewan | Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act | NFACC codes | 1,231,043 |
Nova Scotia | Nova Scotia Animal Protection Act | None | 1,072,545 |
New Brunswick | New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | NFACC codes | 850,894 |
Newfoundland and Labrador | Newfoundland and Labrador Animal Health and Protection Act | NFACC codes | 541,391 |
Prince Edward Island | Prince Edward Island Animal Welfare Act | NFACC codes | 177,081 |
The legal framework for farm animal welfare in Canada is a complex interplay of federal criminal law, provincial/territorial welfare acts, and industry standards. The trend in recent years has been towards increased attention to animal welfare issues, but the specific protections and their enforcement can still vary significantly across the country.
The Animal Farming Industry in Canada
When compared to other industrialised nations, Canada's animal farming industry has unique characteristics that set it apart from its counterparts, especially its disjoined regulatory system outlined above and its agricultural policies.
The supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is the most prominent. This system regulates production, pricing, and imports to ensure stable farm incomes and a consistent supply for consumers. The system uses a quota system to regulate the amount of poultry that farmers can produce. Each farmer must hold a quota, which is a permit specifying how much they are allowed to produce annually. These quotas are managed by provincial marketing boards in collaboration with national agencies like the Chicken Farmers of Canada (11).
Prices for supply-managed products are set to ensure that farmers receive a ‘fair return’ to cover their production costs. This pricing is coordinated through provincial and national organisations, ensuring that farmers are protected from significant price fluctuations (11). This is coupled with tariff-rate quotas for imports which begin far below the import quota, which for chicken is 39,900,000 kg or 7.5% of domestic production, then rising to as high as 300% for butter, which is well over the threshold (11). This prevents the domestic market from being flooded with cheaper foreign products as well as maintaining stable prices and ensures a consistent supply of Canadian poultry. This places Canadian animal farmers in a strong position when competing to fill domestic consumption.
Unfortunately, even with this comparative advantage and protection from policymakers, Canada's animal farming industry is still highly concentrated with the use of intensive production methods, as is the case with many industrialised nations. This is in spite of Canadian consumers' demonstrated preference for higher welfare products (12–14). This leaves a vast number of animals farmed under conditions that are unacceptable to the public; protected through agricultural policy that funnels income from the government and consumers to farmers (15). These include:
108 million broilers alive at any one time (16). Most of these are fast-growing breeds raised under intensive conditions. A few companies have committed to the BCC (or just some parts of it), but only IKEA and Whole Foods seem to have transitioned significant proportions of their chicken supply to slower-growing breeds (6).
An estimated 27 million salmon slaughtered each year (17,18). While The Code of Practice will require slaughter standards and practices to be considered humane by 2025 (19), the industry still experiences numerous welfare problems, such as a high mortality rate with 30% of individuals dying before slaughter during the grow-out phase (20), sea lice outbreaks (21) and disease which also threatens wild salmon populations (22).
25 million layer hens alive at any one time (16). The vast majority (83%) are confined in cages with many still in conventional cages which are banned in many countries around the world (6). These will be phased out by 2036 (23) after a lengthy transition period and likely replaced with ‘enriched’ cages which provide marginal improvements.
14.5 million pigs alive at any one time (16). All pig production in Canada occurs indoors in climate-controlled environments and most pigs are subject to mutilation such as castration, tail docking or teeth trimming (24,25). There is limited information on enrichment provision, but the lack of bedding and barren environments are noted as welfare concerns.
12.6 million cattle alive at any one time (16). Dairy cows suffer from many of the usual welfare concerns that occur in the industry including mother-calf separation and the widespread use of tie stalls (73%) (26). Beef cattle are typically subject to mutilations such as castration (53-69% of producers) and dehorning (86-89% of herds) (27). Unlike other countries, some concerns for cattle surround their exposure to poor weather conditions in the winter where temperatures can drop significantly (28).
Poultry Production
As of 2022, there were 2,826 chicken producers in Canada (29), housing 107,947,696 million broilers alive at any one time (16). The majority of production is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. These are processed by 80 chicken primary processing establishments, only 41 of which are federally inspected (29). There are also 551 turkey farmers operating under supply management with 513 registered turkey producers in 2022. Approximately 1,000 regulated egg farmers produce table eggs and broiler-hatching eggs in Canada.
The vast majority of production comes from large concentrated commercial farms that use fast-growing broiler breeds that reach market weight at around six to eight weeks. The current Canadian Code of Practice allows stocking density up to 31 kg/m2 as standard and a further increase of up to 38 kg/m2 if additional conditions are met (30).
Broiler and layer hen production is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, which together account for a significant portion of Canada's poultry meat and egg production.
Fisheries and Aquaculture
For aquaculture production, the biggest three provinces for salmon production are British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Non-salmon farming, by comparison, has a negligible volume. Trout production involves significant numbers but is still very small when compared to salmon production. Trout production is highest in Ontario but is spread more evenly across provinces, as seen below.
In total, there are 272 aquaculture marine and grow-out licences across British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. However, there might be land-based grow-out facilities not included within the data in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick (31).
Licence holders are set to change dramatically over the next 5 years because the largest producer, British Columbia, is phasing out open-net marine salmon farming and moving to land-based by 2029 (32). More information on the effects of this change are discussed in the section titled, “the ban on sea cage farming”. Salmon aquaculture has historically been very unpopular with the British Columbian public due to the environmental damage caused and the farming of a non-native species. Whereas Aquaculture on the East Coast has a better reputation (33). This has led the federal government to pledge that open-net salmon farming will be phased out in British Columbia by 2029, after which only alternative production methods such as land-based RAS would be permitted. However, it’s not clear whether this target is on track to compete with industry digging its heels in and the government renewing contracts up to the 2029 date (34). This will likely lead to a reduction in overall production in British Columbia, at least in the short term. This has produced lashback from industry representatives who argue that the goal to produce 70,000 tonnes of BC salmon on land in five years time is unrealistic (34).
Outside of production for human consumption, there are also a large number of fish used for stocking lakes, rivers, and other water bodies. These individuals are released at various ages but tend to be much younger than those raised for human consumption
Trade in animal products
Given its geography, Canada likely holds comparative advantages in the production of many livestock (35,36). This includes a large supply of relatively cheap land in remote areas, a supply of relatively cheap feed grain, and a relatively cold climate conducive to controlling animal disease (35). Still, Canada’s export performance for many supply-managed products is weak in comparison to other nations such as New Zealand, Australia, the EU and the US (35).
As covered in previous sections, trade in many animal products is controlled throughout the supply management system. The access quantity is set each year such that products below a certain amount are tariffed at a low amount, and then above this tariffs increase dramatically. This greatly limits the amount of produce that will be imported.
Agreement | Access Quantity (kg) | Access quantity tariff | Tariffs on Over-Quota |
|---|---|---|---|
23,735,000 | 5% | 249% | |
55,000,000 | 5% | 249% | |
39,843,700 | 5% | 249% | |
16,867,000 (dozen eggs equivalent) | 1.51¢/dozen | 163.5% | |
8,333,333 dozen eggs equivalent | 1.51¢/dozen | 163.5% | |
21,370,000 dozen eggs equivalent | 1.51¢/dozen | 163.5% | |
3,535,000 | 5% | 154.5% | |
5,588,000 | 5% | 154.5% | |
Butter (various) | 12,319,000 | Various per kg | 298.5% |
Cheese (various) | 48,772,866 | Various per kg | 298.5% |
Milk (various) | 100,500,000 | Various per kg | 243% |
Other Dairy (various) | 89,253,700 | Various per kg | 208% |
Table: Import of supply-managed goods under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (source)(source)
Given its geographic proximity, the vast majority of trade occurs with the United States, a country with similarly fragmented protections depending on the state of origin. At present, the relative protections afforded to animals produced and exported to Canada from the US and domestic produce are not likely to differ significantly. In some instances, such as German and Danish imports, the birds are afforded greater protection in their country of origin.
Top Campaign Opportunities
Priority 1: Ban or limit unnecessary fish stocking
Fish stocking is done for two purposes in Canada: firstly for recreational purposes and secondly for commercial.
Recreational stocking programs are largely run by provincial environmental departments that stock popular sport fish, such as brown, tiger, rainbow trout, and walleye (37). Each year the number of individuals and species stocked varies depending on demand and capacity of the various water bodies in the province. For example, the stocking program in Alberta alone was as high as 55 million in 2009, as low as 1.5 million in 2018 and 15 million in 2024 (38). Given this wide variance, the total number of fish stocked for recreational programs each year across all provinces ranges from 40 to 100 million in any given year.
Commercial stocking programs are much more significant in scale both inside and outside of Canada. These programs are run as part of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) whose member countries also include Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America (39). Interestingly, the commission is headquartered in Vancouver (40).
The commission conducts directed fisheries and stock enhancement activities, including enforcement of fishing access and commercial stocking. NPAFC hatchery release figures have remained relatively stable across the past 40 years with approximately 5 billion released, of which approximately 369 million came from the Canadian Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) (41). Although estimated hatchery releases deduct known egg and fry mortalities, so the real number of fish raised for release would be higher (42). Hatchery releases take place from British Columbia either into coastal areas such as Haida Gwaii or into the Fraser River.
Depending on the use case, fish raised for stocking can be released as fingerlings, fry or adults. Generally, it is cheaper to release smaller, younger fish as they spend less time in the hatchery, though their survival rate is lower (43). Though the economic return can be better for larger fish for this reason.
To understand the impact of these programs on the vast number of fish involved, we need to understand the life stages of these fish which can be split into three broad phases: hatchery, wild, and death.
Fish raised in hatcheries live their lives in barren unnatural environments. They can suffer from several welfare problems including disease, crowding, poor water quality and stress from handling (44–46). The more individuals and the longer they spend in these conditions, the more we expect them to suffer.
Given the variation in release size, the time spent in the hatchery varies between programs. Taking Alberta's recreational stocking program as an example and with regards to trout releases most trout are around 20 cm in length (about two years old). However, the vast majority of individuals are released at 0.04cm in length (just a few weeks or days old) (38). The average time spent in hatcheries seems very short for recreational stocking fish, since the majority are released whilst very young.
The release weight for salmon from SEP hatcheries for Canada's commercial program ranges from 5 to 25g with most releases happening around 5g for Chinook and 20g for Coho (43). This weight would put them at the parr stage (47) with the expectation they would be between 10 weeks and a year old. Previous research in this area from Simcikas (2017) highlights a variety of sources, one of which suggests that Japanese hatcheries release salmon for the partner program at six months of age (48). Taking into account the average release weights, this estimate seems reasonable.
When released, the vast majority of these fish will die shortly after, with survival rates in one study - regardless of life stage, weight or time of release - averaging below 2% for Chinook and Coho salmon (43). Part of this is just the harsh reality of life as a wild fish, but hatchery programs observe survival rates of less than that for wild fish, (49,50) suggesting the hatchery-released fish are more poorly suited and acclimated to conditions in the wild. The exact time and cause of death is difficult to determine because there is limited research on the death of wild fish. Nevertheless some will die quickly of starvation, adverse physical conditions, or predation from birds or other fish (51).
For those that do survive and grow to larger sizes in the wild, they might be captured by fishers. Estimates for the re-catch rate of chum salmon from studies of the same program in Japan is 2.7% (52). The exact recapture rate will vary depending on the ecological context, species and release timings. Still, if we take this figure at face value, for each salmon recaptured, 37 would have to be released.
Combining each life stage for released salmon, we can then gain a picture of their average life. Each recaptured salmon will have spent six months in a hatchery and six months to two years in the wild before being captured and dying of asphyxiation. For each one of these, 36 other salmon are raised in hatcheries for the same six months, released, and go on to live an undetermined time before dying from several potential causes. If we assume the mean survival time in the wild is also six months, this means each recaptured salmon ‘costs’ a total of 18.5 years on a farm, 18.5 years in the wild, and 37 deaths.
If the program were eliminated and catch volumes decreased, there is potential that consumers could substitute for farmed salmon instead. Farmed salmon by comparison will live for up to one year in freshwater and then up to a further 22 months at sea (53). Excluding deaths in the hatchery and freshwater stage (which are assumed constant across wild release and farmed salmon), about 25% of farmed salmon will die in the sea grow-out stage (54,55). Therefore, on average, getting a farmed salmon to plates will require one year in a hatchery and a further 15 months in sea farming, a total of about two years in farming.
If we compare the average life of a hatchery-released salmon to a farmed salmon, it is difficult to determine which is preferable for a given duration. For the salmon eventually consumed by humans, they spend a similar time in a hatchery before either being raised in cages or released as ‘free range’ in the wild and recaptured. It is difficult to determine which is preferable, given the lack of information about conditions for wild salmon.
However, given the total number of required years of life spent in either intensive farming conditions, or suffering and largely dying in the wild, the shocking waste of life becomes clear. If the program was eliminated and 100% of the demand for ‘wild caught’ recaptured salmon shifted to farmed salmon (the worst case scenario), each salmon substituted in this way would result in approximately 17.5 fewer years in hatchery, 18.5 fewer years spent in the wild, and an increase of 2 years spent in sea farms. Additionally, 35 or so fewer salmon are killed, largely in the wild, with a negligible number continuing to survive in the wild as adults.
However, we note for the reader that these numbers are just for illustration as the uncertainty surrounding the mean duration in hatchery, the wild, and recapture rates are still significant. When accounting for this uncertainty and comparing across a range of scenarios, the direct effect of eliminating this program is likely to be overwhelmingly positive for salmon.
The scenarios in which the elimination of the program would achieve net negative for salmon are when there are both high recapture rates and an early release from hatchery of young fish who largely survive and are recaptured. However, both of these are unlikely to be true simultaneously as the relationship between age/size at release and survival is positive (56–58) with smaller fish much less likely to survive long enough to be recaptured. It is also worth noting that in these scenarios (low release age/size and high recapture rates) such programs will have higher financial hatchery returns, presumably making it more difficult to close such programs even if environmental and animal welfare benefits are still large.
Campaign-wise, although these programs claim to be in part conservation efforts, this claim is dubious at best. The release of hatchery salmon has well-documented detrimental effects on the genetic diversity of the fitness of salmon populations (59,60). The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization states that the risks associated with stocking often outweigh any perceived ecological benefits. There are minimal situations where it may be beneficial, limited to scenarios where there is an immediate risk of extirpation (61).
Instead, these programs can be thought of as a subsidy for commercial salmon fisheries. Riddel et al (2024) estimate their contribution to the wild catch as ranging from 3 to 43% between different regions and species in British Columbia (62). Other nearby programs such as Alaska's salmon hatchery program have clearer models of economic returns with an average estimated contribution of $120 million to catch returns (of a total of $322.8 million) between 2012 and 2017, compared to an expenditure of $57 million in 2017 (63). This is a comparable proportional contribution to the upper end of Riddel et al estimates.
While this is significant, the total value of salmon Atlantic & Pacific coast commercial landings in Canada was only $32.7 million in 2022 (77). If stocking has comparable contributions in Canada to those found in Alaska, they would return $12 million a year. Meanwhile, total expenditure on the program (including other activities such as enforcement and research) is currently around $130 million a year (64). Economic models suggest that the seed cost and recapture rate of these programs are sufficient to make economic returns (43). However, the macro-level figures for program cost and landing returns seem to contradict these models.
This may still be a difficult campaign as the commercial fishing industry does directly benefit from the hatchery program so should be expected to oppose its closure. Having said this, given the negative ecological/environmental effects and relatively small questionable contribution to total fisheries value, we recommend this ask to any organisations or individuals positioned to take action on this issue. This work is significantly different from typical animal advocacy campaigns and might benefit from a dedicated organisation working on this issue. Please get in touch if you are interested in working on this ask.
Priority 2: Work on regulatory capture and code reforms
While some further research is needed to firmly diagnose the problem, there are many indications that regulatory capture is a large problem impeding animal advocacy progress in Canada. Regulatory capture occurs when regulations are co-opted by industry interests, rather than the will of the public. In Canada, the most significant manifestation of this is that no legislation or regulations to set standards for animal welfare on farms currently exist at either the federal or provincial level. Instead, industry largely has control over voluntary standards for farmed animals, via the National Farmed Animal Care Council’s process for creating the codes of practice for animal welfare in the country. This can serve a humane washing function, presenting the appearance of substantial animal welfare regulations while being unenforceable by the government and much less effective than they appear.
We recommend this campaign to organisations in a position to work on this, starting with more research to confirm the problem more directly, such as polling data on public attitudes towards industry self-regulation, and freedom of information requests to find direct cases of undue industry influence.
We have more information on this topic upon request, please reach out if you have any questions or are interested in similar campaigns.
Priority 3: Cage-free campaigns for layer hens
The literature on cage systems compared to cage-free farming of layer hens is clear, cage-free systems are “clearly superior to conventional cages and furnished cages even soon after a transition to cage-free environments” (7). Prompt transitions have been proven feasible in multiple contexts including Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and many US states such as California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Washington, both for individual companies' supply chains as well as at the national level.
Cage-free hen legislation around the world. (65)
Jurisdiction | Percentage of hens in battery cages (before legislation) | Hen cage-free legislation date | Cage-free deadline | Timeline (days) |
Switzerland | N.A | 3 Dec, 1978 | Jan 1, 1992 | 4,777 |
N.A | 6 Jun, 2018 | Dec 31, 2020 | 909 | |
Austria | May 27, 2004 | Jan 1, 2020* | 5,697 | |
Rhode Island (USA) | N.A | Feb 7, 2018 | July 1, 2026 | 3,066 |
Massachusetts (USA) | ~90% | Nov 8, 2016 | Jan 1, 2022 | 1,880 |
California (USA) | ~90% | Nov 6, 2018 | Jan 1, 2022 | 1,150 |
Washington (USA) | ~90% | Apr 22, 2019 | Jan 1, 2024 | 1,715 |
Oregon (USA) | ~90% | Jun 30, 2019 | Jan 1, 2024 | 1,646 |
Michigan (USA) | ~90% | Nov 22, 2019 | Dec 31, 2024 | 1,866 |
Colorado (USA) | July 1, 2020 | Jan 1, 2025** | 1,645 | |
Czechia | Nov 13, 2020 | January 1, 2027 | 2,240 | |
Utah (USA) | Mar 17, 2021 | Jan 1, 2025 | 1,386 | |
Arizona (USA) | Apr 22, 2022 | Jan 1, 2025 | 985 | |
Nevada (USA) | May 21, 2021 | Jan 1, 2024 | 955 | |
Apr 22, 2016 | Jan 1, 2026 | 3,541 | ||
Slovakia*** | 7 Feb, 2020 | Jan 1, 2030 | 3,616 | |
Median | 71% | 1,873 (5 years) |
*(Battery cages by 2013 and all by 2020)
**2023 for eggs sold
***Memorandum between the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Union of Poultry Professionals of the Slovak Republic
Although Canadians are concerned about the welfare of farmed animals and there is widespread support for the adoption of cage-free eggs (66), the egg industry is currently lagging behind other comparable countries in its progress towards going cage-free. As of November 2023, in Canada 51% of eggs come from conventional cages; 32% enriched cages; 11% cage-free; 1.4% free-range; and 5% organic (4). This confines 20.5 million of Canada's 24.8 million laying hen flocks to a life of restriction and frustration (16).
Many of the major grocery retailers, such as Loblaw, Safeways/ Sobeys, Costco, Metro, and Walmart made commitments to transition to cage-free eggs in 2016 (67) but will fail to meet their commitments by the end of 2025 unless drastic action is taken (6). Many are not reporting progress and Loblaw dropped the deadline on their original commitment. Many are not reporting progress and Loblaw dropped the deadline on their original commitment, even though still confirming they “are committed to transitioning to 100% cage free eggs”
Canada has continually fallen behind the UK, EU, and even the US (6). Conventional cages are being phased out by 2036, something the EU and UK phased out in 2012 (68,69), placing Canada over 20 years behind otherwise comparable countries. A stark contrast to similar significant economies such as California, transitioning from approximately 90% battery cages to a ban on cage system production and sales. Additionally, enriched cages will still be permitted in Canada after 2036 (70), which other countries have already considered phasing out.
Even though grocers have been slow on their progress, other industries show that change is possible. McDonald’s Canada, Boston Pizza, and Eggsmart fulfilled their cage-free egg policies one year ahead of their deadlines.
The reason for the relative lack of progress in contrast to comparable countries is hard to pinpoint exactly. However, a key factor appears to be the industry backtracking from its commitments. For example, the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) had voluntarily committed to going cage-free but backtracked on their commitments a few years later, and left grocery members to make independent decisions of their own policies. With that, many grocers also included statements on their websites about their commitments, including Loblaws (one of the biggest supermarket chains in Canada), that is now not meeting its 2025 target for going cage free (71) and would instead pursue NFACC policies in the future. In many cases these U-turns on commitments have come sometime after the original pledge was won, meaning that the initial campaigns had already ended and would have to be restarted, a costly loss of momentum (expert interviews). The NFACC may also play a role in protecting the industry from bad publicity, which can make it more able to U-turn on policies like this (expert interviews).
Given the immense and well-evidenced suffering of layer hens confined in both conventional and enriched cages, cage-free remains a priority issue for advocacy in Canada.
Other Almost Strong Campaigns
Potential 1: Better Chicken Commitment
The BCC is another, prominent welfare-focused ask, which aims to improve the lives of broiler chickens, the most populous farmed animal in Canada, of which 108 million are alive at any given time (16). In comparison to cage-free, the BCC affects many more individuals, in part due to their shorter lifespans. This might be a smaller reduction in suffering per individual (72), but the reduction would be of excruciating pain rather than disabling or hurtful as in the cage systems and enrichment cages. The two asks would result in comparable improvements in overall welfare, with cage-free focussing on more comfortability over longer durations while the BCC would mitigate more intense and short issues.
For this reason, the BCC should remain a long-term goal for Canada, taking opportunities to advocate for change during reviews of the codes of practice by the NFACC (73) or assisting interested stakeholders and first movers (74) in their transition but should not be a focus of resources.
Notes
[1] Northwest territories and Nunavut do not have Animal Welfare Acts that extend to famed animals, but have limited to no animal farming because of the northerly climates (9).
Bibliography
1. Favara A. Faunalytics. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 4]. Canada’s farmed animal welfare progress in 2022. Available from: https://faunalytics.org/canadas-farmed-animal-welfare-progress-in-2022/
2. The Humane Society of the United States [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 4]. About the Canadian seal hunt. Available from: https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/about-canadian-seal-hunt
3. Justice A. Animal Justice. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 4]. Fur Farms. Available from: https://animaljustice.ca/issues/fur-farms
4. Nedeff E (duda). Animal Justice. 2023 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Understanding the Labels: What’s the Real Deal on Egg Farming Systems. Available from: https://animaljustice.ca/blog/understanding-egg-labels
5. McMillan JR, Morrison B, Chambers N, Ruggerone G, Bernatchez L, Stanford J, et al. A global synthesis of peer‐reviewed research on the effects of hatchery salmonids on wild salmonids. Fish Manag Ecol [Internet]. 2023 Oct;30(5):446–63. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fme.12643
6. 2023 Canada Animal Welfare Scorecard - Ranking Major Food Companies on ood Companies on Their Animal Welfare Performance [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://file-cdn.mercyforanimals.org/mercy4animals.wpengine.com/sites/517/2023/10/2023-Canada-Scorecard-Report.pdf
7. Transition to cage-free systems – Welfare Footprint Project [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://welfarefootprint.org/research-projects/laying-hens/
8. Constitutional provisions [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 6]. Available from: https://foodpolicyforcanada.info.yorku.ca/instruments/constitutional-provisions/
9. Fraser D, Koralesky KE, Urton G. Toward a harmonized approach to animal welfare law in Canada. Can Vet J [Internet]. 2018 Mar;59(3):293–302. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29559748
10. API Index Country summary Canada [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 6]. Available from: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/canada
11. Canada’s Supply Management System [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 12]. Available from: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201842E
12. Lu Y. Consumer preference for eggs from enhanced animal welfare production system: A stated choice analysis [Internet]. University of Guelph; 2013. Available from: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/bitstream/10214/7467/1/Lu_Yiqing_Aug_2013_MSc.pdf
13. Clark B, Stewart GB, Panzone LA, Kyriazakis I, Frewer LJ. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy [Internet]. 2017 Apr 1;68:112–27. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921730060X
14. Laryea AA. Farm animal welfare in Canada: Role of values, attitudes and knowledge on the consumer choice of farm animal welfare labelled meat [Internet]. University of Alberta Libraries; 2017. Available from: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/bbb27cb0-4a8d-4c4b-8cb1-1b49daa762b7
15. Forbes JD. Societal Control of Producer Marketing Boards. Journal of Macromarketing [Internet]. 1982 Jun 1;2(1):27–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/027614678200200107
16. Government of Canada, Canada S. Animal production [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/subjects/agriculture_and_food/animal_production?sourcecode=3438&p=1-Data
17. Aquaculture production quantities and value, 2022 [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/aqua/aqua22-eng.html
18. Fishcount [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Estimated numbers of individuals in aquaculture production (FAO) of fish species (2017) Summary for Canada. Available from: https://fishcount.org.uk/studydatascreens2/2017/numbers-of-farmed-fish-B0-2017.php?countrysort=Canada%2Fsort2
19. Dick M. Aquaculture North America. 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Humane slaughter of salmonids easier said than done. Available from: https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/humane-slaughter-of-salmonids-easier-said-than-done/
20. Iversen A, Asche F, Hermansen Ø, Nystøyl R. Production cost and competitiveness in major salmon farming countries 2003–2018. Aquaculture [Internet]. 2020 May 30;522:735089. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848619300638
21. Average number of lice per fish on BC salmon farms [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/lice-ab-pou/index-eng.html
22. Seachoice. SALMON FARMING IS GOING VIRAL: DISEASE EDITION [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.seachoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SeaChoice-AQ-briefing-Disease.pdf
23. BC SPCA [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Understanding egg labels. Available from: https://spca.bc.ca/news/understanding-egg-labels/
24. Cunningham C. Farmers Weekly. 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. What pig farming looks like in Canada. Available from: https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/pigs/what-pig-farming-looks-like-in-canada
25. BC SPCA [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Pig farming in Canada. Available from: https://spca.bc.ca/programs-services/farm-animal-programs/farm-animal-production/pigs/
26. Palacio S, Adam S, Bergeron R, Pellerin D, de Passillé AM, Rushen J, et al. Minor stall modifications and outdoor access can help improve dairy cow welfare in tie-stalls. Can J Anim Sci [Internet]. 2023 Mar 1;103(1):1–14. Available from: https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjas-2022-0038
27. Beef Cattle Research Council. Adoption Rates of Recommended Practices by Cow-Calf Operators in Canada [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.beefresearch.ca/content/uploads/2022/04/Adoption_Rates_of_Recommended_Practices_by_Cow-Calf_Operators_in_Canada_-_March_2019_Final.pdf
28. BC SPCA [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Beef farming in Canada. Available from: https://spca.bc.ca/programs-services/farm-animal-programs/farm-animal-production/beef-cattle/
29. Cumpton A. How Big is the Canadian Poultry Industry? Canadian Chicken Industry Stats 2024 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.carlisletechnology.com/blog/canadian-poultry-industry-stats
30. Poultry Code of Practice [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.nfacc.ca/poultry-code-of-practice
31. Current valid British Columbia aquaculture licence holders [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 16]. Available from: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/522d1b67-30d8-4a34-9b62-5da99b1035e6
32. Quentin. FiskerForum. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 16]. BC heads for transition from open net-pen salmon aquaculture. Available from: https://fiskerforum.com/bc-heads-for-transition-from-open-net-pen-salmon-aquaculture/
33. Aiken DE. Aquaculture in Canada. Perspective on Canadian Marine Fisheries Management Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences [Internet]. 1993;226:411–46. Available from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QHpklp_F26oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA411&dq=Aquaculture+in+Canada+Aiken&ots=zNxovpaXQh&sig=uWJyO_sdcPGUzul95JfO10UgwnU
34. MacDiarmid C. Canada to ban open-net pen salmon farming in British Columbia. The Guardian [Internet]. 2024 Jun 20 [cited 2024 Aug 16]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/canada-to-ban-open-net-pen-salmon-farming-in-british-columbia
35. Carter CA, Mérel PR. Hidden Costs of Supply Management in a Small Market [Internet]. SSRN; 2016. 34 p. Available from: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ofPhzwEACAAJ
36. Mussell A, Poirier A, Zafiriou M. Forces Impacting Animal Agriculture in Canada: A Synthesis. 2023; Available from: https://capi-icpa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Forces-Impacting-Animal-Agriculture-in-Canada-A-Synthesis-1.pdf
37. Open Alberta: Fish Stocking Report 2024 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/be2e3289-2f94-461d-b4b9-ef50216b8157/resource/6ce25a2e-e1eb-49f8-8a8f-e71066c2a8da/download/epa-alberta-fish-stocking-report-2024.pdf
38. Fish stocking report [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/fish-stocking-list
39. About – NPAFC [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.npafc.org/about/
40. Headquarters Agreement – NPAFC [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.npafc.org/headquarters-agreement-2/
41. Statistics – NPAFC [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.npafc.org/statistics/
42. NPAFC Statistics: Description of Pacific Salmonid Catch and Hatchery Release Data Files [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.npafc.org/wp-content/uploads/Statistics/Statistics-Metadata-Report-June2024.pdf
43. James SE, Doherty B, Cox SP, Pearsall IA, Riddell B. Size and timing of hatchery releases influence juvenile-to-adult survival rates of British Columbia Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci [Internet]. 2023 Apr 1;80(4):700–18. Available from: https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfas-2022-0121
44. FWI [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 26]. Salmon Welfare Report. Available from: https://www.fishwelfareinitiative.org/salmon-welfare
45. Fish welfare [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 26]. Available from: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/fish/fish-welfare/#:~:text=Welfare%20issues%20for%20farmed%20fish,-Overcrowding&text=In%20fish%20farms%2C%20large%20numbers,have%20less%20oxygen%20to%20breathe.
46. NORWEGIAN VETERINARY INSTITUTE. Animal welfare in fish hatcheries [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 26]. Available from: https://www.vetinst.no/rapporter-og-publikasjoner/rapporter/2019/animal-welfare-in-fish-hatcheries-smafiskvel/_/attachment/download/d95b1229-378e-4d51-b25d-5a27785bc80a:50a3f437d19609cee0bfc4323b1fbfbaba10e4bd/Animal-welfare-in-fish-hatcheries-SMAFISKVEL.pdf
47. FAO Table Approximate indicative weight of different size classes of Atlantic salmon [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/affris/docs/Atlantic_Salmon/table_1.htm
48. Šimčikas S. Rethink Priorities. 2019 [cited 2024 Aug 30]. 35-150 billion fish are raised in captivity to be released into the wild every year. Available from: https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/fish-raised-in-capacity-and-released-wild
49. PSF Marine Science Program [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Project overview. Available from: https://marinescience.psf.ca/hatchery-effectiveness/
50. Saloniemi I, Jokikokko E, Kallio-Nyberg I, Jutila E, Pasanen P. Survival of reared and wild Atlantic salmon smolts: size matters more in bad years. ICES J Mar Sci [Internet]. 2004 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 2];61(5):782–7. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/61/5/782/865891
51. Hecht L. Wild Animal Initiative. 2020 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. How wild animals die: what we know so far. Available from: https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/cause-of-death-3
52. Kitada S. Economic, ecological and genetic impacts of marine stock enhancement and sea ranching: A systematic review. Fish Fish [Internet]. 2018 May;19(3):511–32. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12271
53. Scottish Sea Farms [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. How we grow salmon. Available from: https://scottishseafarms.com/our-salmon/how-grown/
54. Salmon Scotland [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. What is the mortality rate of Scottish salmon? Available from: https://www.salmonscotland.co.uk/facts/fish-welfare/mortality-rates-in-scottish-salmon-farming
55. Tapper J. Salmon deaths on Scotland’s fish farms double – but are jellyfish to blame? The Guardian [Internet]. 2023 Jan 15 [cited 2024 Sep 2]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/15/salmon-death-scotland-fish-farm-jellyfish-overcrowding
56. Lundqvist H, McKinnell S, Fängstam H, Berglund I. The effect of time, size and sex on recapture rates and yield after river releases of Salmo salar smolts. Aquaculture [Internet]. 1994 Mar 15;121(1):245–57. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0044848694900248
57. Lin M, Chen S, Gozlan RE, Ren P, Li W, Ye S, et al. Stock enhancement of Culter mongolicus: Assessment of growth, recapture and release size in the Yangtze lakes. Fish Res [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1;234:105809. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016578362030326X
58. McKinnell SM, Lundqvist H. Unstable release strategies in reared Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Fish Manag Ecol [Internet]. 2000 Jun;7(3):211–24. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00172.x
59. Ingram BA, De Silva S. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. General aspects of stock enhancement in fisheries developments. Available from: https://enaca.org/?id=289
60. Young KA, Adams C, Ferguson A, De Leaniz CG, Gephard S, Metcalfe N, et al. A scientific consensus on salmon stocking [Internet]. Unpublished; 2014. Available from: http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.27871.05286
61. NSCO Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://nasco.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CNL2461_Stocking-Guidelines.pdf
62. Riddell BE, Pearsall I, Rosenberger A. A review of Pacific salmon hatcheries in British Columbia, Canada, and interactions with natural populations. Fisheries [Internet]. 2024 Jul;49(7):303–18. Available from: https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsh.11091
63. [No title] [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/2018_alaskahatchery_economic_impact_report.pdf
64. Bennett N. North Shore News. 2021 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Federal government to fund new salmon hatcheries. Available from: https://www.nsnews.com/bc-news/federal-government-to-fund-new-salmon-hatcheries-3856234
65. Ryba R. Economic evaluation of the transition to cage-free housing on the EU egg and pigmeat industries [Internet]. Animal Ask. 2023 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Available from: https://www.animalask.org/post/economic-evaluation-of-the-transition-to-cage-free-housing-on-the-eu-egg-and-pigmeat-industries
66. Bryant Research. Bryant Research - Helping you build a better future of food. Bryant Research; 2023 [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Canadians support an end to cage confinement for egg-laying hens - Bryant Research. Available from: https://bryantresearch.co.uk/insight-items/end-cage-confinement/
67. Hiddema K. Mercy For Animals. 2016 [cited 2024 Sep 3]. BREAKING! Canada’s largest grocers going cage-free. Available from: https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/breaking-canadas-largest-grocers-going-cage/
68. RSPCA Assured [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Understanding battery hens: RSPCA assured’s commitment to higher welfare. Available from: https://www.rspcaassured.org.uk/farmed-animal-welfare/egg-laying-hens/what-is-a-battery-hen/
69. Food Safety [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 2]. Laying hens. Available from: https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/eu-animal-welfare-legislation/animal-welfare-farm/laying-hens_en#:~:text=Council+Directive+1999/74/EC,hens+per+m%C2%B2+usable+area
70. Davies J. Farmers Weekly. 2016 [cited 2024 Sep 4]. Canada to phase out battery cages over next 20 years. Available from: https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/poultry/layers/canada-phase-battery-cages-next-20-years
71. Malhotra S. Animal Justice. 2023 [cited 2024 Sep 17]. Gala Protest: Confronting Retail Council of Canada (RCC) & Loblaws Over Failed Cage-Free Commitment. Available from: https://animaljustice.ca/blog/rcc-protest-cage-free-promise
72. Broilers – welfare footprint project [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 3]. Available from: https://welfarefootprint.org/broilers
73. Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) Broiler Chicken Standards Compared to National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 3]. Available from: https://betterchickencommitment.com/BCC_NFACC_Comparison.pdf
74. Graber R. WATTPoultry.com. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 3]. How are Canada companies progressing toward BCC pledges? Available from: https://www.wattagnet.com/broilers-turkeys/article/15536703/how-are-canada-companies-progressing-toward-bcc-pledges
75. Rafajlovic J, Cardwell R. The effects of a new WTO agreement on Canada’s chicken market: A differentiated products modeling approach. Can J Agric Econ [Internet]. 2013 Dec;61(4):487–507. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12002
76. Ryba R. Subsidies: Which reforms can help animals? [Internet]. Animal Ask. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 3]. Available from: https://www.animalask.org/post/subsidies-which-reforms-can-help-animals
77. 2022 Value of provincial landings [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/land-debarq/sea-maritimes/s2022pv-eng.htm
Comments