The Ostriches: How We Got Here, Where We Are Now, and Where We Go from Here

History
In late 2024, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered the cull of about 400 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm near Edgewood, B.C., after detecting H5N1 avian influenza through high-cycle PCR testing. The farm fought the order in court, arguing the birds were healthy and more testing was needed, winning temporary stays through early 2025. However, successive rulings upheld the CFIA’s authority under the Health of Animals Act and its strict “stamping-out” policy, even though the flock remained symptom-free for over 220+ days. By August 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal denied the farm’s final appeal, leaving the CFIA legally free to proceed with the cull despite public controversy and international attention. 

My office has been tracking the ostrich issue in Edgewood closely. My staff and I have followed developments in the courts and the media, and we have been in direct contact with many of the key parties involved. Throughout this process, I have been mindful of my role as a Member of Parliament. As a private citizen I can say what I want, and I’ll protect the right of free speech for the rest of my life, but as an elected official I am held to a different standard. There are certain things I should not say while a matter is before the courts—because even well-intentioned comments could be seen as an attempt to influence judicial decisions. 

The matter is no longer before the courts.

Support for the CFIA
To begin with, I have heard from some who support the CFIA’s plans to cull the ostriches, some neighbours with livestock they feel are endangered by the ostriches and others because of personal animosity toward the farm owners. I reject the personal attacks, not because they have or don’t have merit, but because they just aren’t relevant to the cull.  I respect the concerns of the livestock owners nearby, but if the scientists I consulted are correct, the ostriches may actually be a block against the spread.

Last court ruling
I respect the recent decision of the judges. They were asked to rule on a narrow question of legality. They ruled, quite rightly in my view, that “the stamping-out policy, which underlies the two decisions, the notice to dispose, and the exemption denial, are all reasonable in accordance with that case law.” The judges were in effect asked to rule on whether the law thinks the law is reasonable within the parameters of the law. Their unanimous decision affirming that fact is hardly shocking.

The courts refused to hear new evidence (like how it is almost eight months after the last sickness or death), because that’s not what they were asked to rule on. They did not rule on whether a cull is scientifically required, a decision they would not in any event be qualified to make. They did not rule on whether a cull is scientifically preferable to other means of disease containment. They did not rule on the fact that since there have been no sickness-related deaths among the ostriches (or sickness for that matter) in over eight months, it might suggest that the birds are not either sick or contagious. They did not rule on the futility of a cull when bird flu would have to be in the wild bird population anyway. They did not rule on the science behind the cull, nor why the CFIA refuses to allow the farm to test the ostriches, refuses to test the ostriches itself, and refuses to discuss alternatives to a cull. 

Government reaction
I can only speak for myself when I say I’m disappointed with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s stubborn refusal to allow testing, engage with senior academics in the field, or consider alternatives to mass culls. I’m also concerned about the inaction of the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Heath MacDonald, who has mouthed platitudes but has made no apparent effort to investigate or intervene. The only offer made to me by that office was for a briefing on H5N1, no doubt meant to impress upon me the dire nature of Bird flu. However, my concern is not the disease’s degree of danger and lethality, but rather how we are attempting to mitigate it.   My concern is the CFIA’s response, and the lack of serious attention from Liberal policy-makers.  I think Canadian farmers need answers from the government, not sidesteps, misdirection or obfuscation.

Scientific response
I am not a scientist, so when I first became aware of the ostrich matter I reached out to an expert, Dr. Steven Pelech, a tenured professor of Neurology at UBC, and CEO of Kinexus Bioinformatics. I did so before talking to the farm owners or CFIA, neither of whom had I any prior contact with. This interaction led to numerous other conversations with individuals at the very top of their respective fields, who have together provided critical insight and guidance. This list includes Dr. Jeff Wilson, professor at the University of Guelph and president of Novometrix Research, with doctorates in Veterinary Medicine, Epidemiology, and Pathology; Dr. Niel Karrow, professor at the University of Guelph, who studies innate immunoregulation, immunotoxicology and immunogenetics, and Dr. Bonnie Mallard, Professor Emeritus of Immunogenetics at the University of Guelph, and once graduate thesis advisor to Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, currently the Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada and the CFIA. This list of highly qualified professionals is far from exhaustive, and includes other highly credentialed scientists who prefer to remain anonymous.

These folks are at the top of their fields and immersed in the science surrounding the proposed ostrich cull. They did not lobby me.  I called them.

Universally these scientists declared the cull unnecessary. Universally they declared that these birds, which have always been research animals, have immense value in immunology research, not only of H5N1 (Bird flu), but also SARS-CoV-2 (Covid) and more. All of them suggested that it is possible and even likely that the remaining ostriches have achieved natural immunity. All of them expressed disbelief that the CFIA ordered a cull on the basis of two dead birds subjected to a high-cycle PCR tests, while disallowing the farm to test its own birds, and refusing to retest themselves with reliable technology. Universally they declared a cull counter-productive to the advancement of science, one calling a cull “destruction of knowledge.”

While all of them acknowledged that a mass cull will work effectively in the short term, in the long run the cull doesn’t solve the problem, because replacing the old ostriches with new stock simply means that the new stock can be infected the same way the originals were, but without resistance to the disease. All of them also believe there are better and effective alternatives that preserve the knowledge. They made the point that we don’t cull humans when we have pandemics. 

The emotional and social impact of a mass farm cull goes almost without saying. The idea of your life’s work destroyed, your farm rendered useless, and facing the prospect of starting over again, makes for an image that sends shudders through most of us. Add to that the emotional attachment to many of the animals, the habits ingrained, the lifestyle you’ve adopted, your relationship to your neighbours, town, life circle…all of these things are shattered. 
There are of course other problems involved with the Edgewood case, like the fact that the CFIA doesn’t have a category for ostriches or even a distinction for ratites, and instead simply lumps ostriches in with poultry. The two are different physiologically, phenomenologically, and obviously genetically. Ostriches are not chickens. 

But the ostrich case represents a microcosm of much broader issues as well. 

1 On a philosophical level it illustrates the helplessness of small farmers against monolithic government bureaucracy, and illustrates by extension the relationship of all citizens to federal government institutions.  This top-down Liberal/NDP governance model, in which decisions are made at the top and enacted by faceless centralized bureaucracies, will always create the kinds of conflicts a more nuanced regional model avoids. When life altering decisions are made for us by people we’ll never meet and against whose decisions we have no reasonable recourse…when that happens, we are left with technocratic governance-by-policy with no room for common sense or human compassion. CFIA’s actions, backed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, are a stark epitome of bureaucratic overreach.

2 Fear of CFIA remedies may lead to dangerous results. The resultant fear amongst farmers is not hard to understand. Farmers are petrified of reporting sickness in their herds because a CFIA SUV may show up and a few days later some guy at a desk in Ottawa may announce the destruction of a life’s work based on (in the ostrich case) a couple of highly inaccurate high-cycle PCR tests (per Drs Pelech, Wilson, Mallard et. al.). That’s if they don’t also order the demise of every dog, cat, and pet on location. Farmers have no recourse except the courts, and there the case becomes one of jurisdictional responsibility rather than actual science, with an inevitable result. Should a farmer have to pay upwards of half a million dollars in legal fees to lose at every avenue? At what point will Ralph Klein’s infamous response to the discovery of Mad Cow Disease rear its head again (“shoot, shovel and shut up”)? At what point will farmers begin to stop reporting because the cost is existentially high, and perhaps unnecessarily so? 

3 The ostrich situation also reflects the control that international agreements have over Canadian farmers.  Canada is a signatory to the World Organization for Animal Health (WHOA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), both of which in effect encourages culls in order to participate in preferential trade policies, and in doing so bind Canada’s hands. Less directly, the World Health Organization (WHO) constrains Canada’s choices and remedies in its approach to disease and pandemics in livestock populations. Don’t get me wrong, I believe international agreements are necessary because common understandings and agreements and a documented rule of international law make free trade possible. But I question the moral license of a faceless bureaucrat in Geneva or the Hague making existential decisions for my constituents on a farm in Edgewood, BC. One-size-fits-all policies don’t even work when they are confined to Canada itself, and they certainly won’t work on a global scale. 

Conclusion
Speaking only for myself as a federal representative of my constituents in the riding, it is clear to me that the weight of qualified academics who question the CFIA decision to cull the ostriches raises important scientific questions about the stamping out policy for livestock generally, as well as how it applies to taxonomically distinct ostriches specifically. While I make no recommendations here, I believe that the culling policies and procedures under which the CFIA operate need a second look by qualified scientists. Finally, we as Canadian lawmakers have to do better at streamlining and molding our institutions to interact with our citizens. Our citizens are not annoyances we have to put up with; they are our employers.

I would ask the Minister to engage with the academic community, not by insulting them with offers of seminars on the horrors of Bird flu, but by listening and learning. Preferably before the CFIA slaughters 400 healthy and scientifically valuable ostriches.