The project’s lead researcher is so excited she’s putting off retirement.

“I want the first experiment in a system like this. This is so exciting,” Karen Schwean-Lardner said in a University of Saskatchewan news release.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation announced $6.2 million in funding to build a state-of-the-art poultry laying facility at the University. The foundation is a federal government-created non-profit set up in 1997 to fund research infrastructure in Canada.

WHY IT MATTERS: The proposed facility will allow researchers to improve poultry barn lighting, housing and food systems for better animal welfare and egg production.

The Saskatchewan Egg Producers contributed $3 million while the university’s agriculture and bioresource department added $1 million.

“This will move us so far forward in poultry research,” said Schwean-Lardner in the release. Schwean-Lardner is a professor in the university’s department of animal and poultry science.

The nearly 24,000-square-foot facility is set to include three types of hen housing: enriched, free run and free-range. Ten individual housing rooms will have controls for lighting, temperature and other environmental factors.

“Each one is like a little mini-barn,” Schwean-Larder told media.

“Big data is getting more attention these days. We have a lot of data that can be gathered over time, and this unit is going to allow us to manage that data and collect it over a long period of time,” assistant professor Deborah Adewole said. “There are going to be a lot of new things that we can do for poultry research.”

The facility will also include viewing rooms so public groups — for example, schoolchildren — can see the chickens and housing systems while reducing biosecurity risks.

“We can control the environment. Right now, we cannot do that in the same way,” said Adewole. “This facility is one of its kind in Canada. There are other universities that have built new facilities, but this one is encompassing all systems and has space for public viewing systems as well — which is a first in Canada.”

Schwean-Larder said her first experiment would look at the effects of light on the hens and will involve researchers from the U.S.

“To be able to do that kind of research with an international perspective, I can’t stand it. I’m losing my voice because I’m excited.”

Announced Oct. 8, seven changes will be made to the Health of Animals Regulations and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The reduction of red tape across Canada’s regulations and bureaucracy was called for by prime minister Mark Carney this summer.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canadian farmers have been calling for a more nimble regulatory system for years.

The review was intended to look into aspects of the regulatory system across all sectors and address issues such as duplication or overlap with other jurisdictions, outdated requirements and inefficient and complicated processes.

The changes fall into the latter promise of removing certain prescriptive requirements, increasing flexibility and efficiency, and “levelling the playing field,” the government has said.

The seven changes are:

• Fresh fruit and vegetables no longer require prescriptive labels.
• Traceability labelling requirements for hatching eggs and chicks are reduced to align with current industry practices.
• Produce intended for further processing, manufacturing or preserving is exempt from mandatory grading requirements.
• Import requirements for veal producers will be revamped to let them optimize product value.
• Fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards will be managed by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corp. to more effectively meet industry needs.
• Updates to animal import rules will be made easier and more efficient to align with international standards or new science.
• There will be required testing for Salmonella enteritidis on hatching eggs imported from the United States to licensed Canadian hatcheries.

Cautious optimism

Industry groups described the changes as a positive first step, but they’re waiting for more.

“(We) see this as one step in an ongoing process of regulatory modernization to ensure we’re building a regulatory regime that better serves a competitive agri-food industry, while maintaining the strength and rigour of Canada’s world-leading health and safety regulations,” the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said in a statement.

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba built on those sentiments.

APAS president Bill Prybylski said these kinds of increased efficiencies need to come to both the grain industry and livestock industries.

He cited the approval process for pesticides, fungicides, livestock medications and feed supplements in United States, compared to the slower timeline often seen in Canada.

That’s been a consistent frustration for Canadian farmers and the agriculture industry.

“If the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has done their due diligence, which we would assume that they have, and have approved a product for use in the States, being a trusted jurisdiction, there needs to be a way to speed up the approval process of bringing those products for use into Canada,” Prybylski said.

He was hopeful the momentum of the changes continues because government and Canadians recognize their impact.

“Once they recognize that, you know, making some simple little changes like this is not in any way jeopardizing the health and safety of the food that we produce, but that it’s just making it easier for producers to do the things that they need to do, and getting a safe, healthy food out to consumers,” he said.

KAP said that it will be continuing to review these and future changes, but added that all government should review their policies.

“KAP supports the reduction of burdensome red tape that stifles the ability of Manitoba producers to prosper,” Colin Hornby, KAP’s general manager, said in an email.

“We strongly urge all levels of government to prioritize the streamlining of their respective regulatory environments for the benefit of all of agriculture.”

Highly pathogenic avian influenza, commonly called bird flu, is a seasonal disease spread by migratory birds. It has led to the culling of tens of millions of poultry worldwide in recent years, disrupting production and raising fears of human transmission.

“This decree … was issued following evidence of infection among migratory wild birds in Europe, including France, and the confirmation of several outbreaks in poultry farms,” the agriculture ministry said in the government’s official journal.

So far, two bird flu outbreaks have been detected on poultry farms and three in backyard flocks, the ministry said in the decree. A first case had been detected in mid-October at a pheasant and partridge breeding farm in northern France.

The change in status will take effect on Wednesday, Oct, 22.

The upgrade to risk status in the seasonal assessment is kicking in earlier than previous years, taking effect in October compared to November last year and December in 2023.

— Reporting by Gus Trompiz and Sybille de La Hamaide

All Safe Food for Canadians (SFC) licence holders who are slaughtering poultry are expected to implement the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program by Dec. 1, 2025. Currently, the scope of this program is limited to poultry carcasses.

WHY IT MATTERS: The CFIA’s new policy comes into force Dec. 1, 2025, for Canada’s poultry sector.

Live birds bring a load of pathogens in the intestine to the slaughter process. Every stage from the hanging of the carcass in live receiving to its entrance into the chiller has the potential to influence the microbial load on the final product.

Monitoring the microbial load at a defined point before carcasses are in their pre-chill mode allows for a more precise evaluation of contamination control measures applied during the dressing and evisceration stages.

Data generated through the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is intended to drive science-based decisions within an operator’s food safety system to optimize interventions and enhance food safety. This information will empower license holders to verify the effectiveness of their control measures, validate the impact of process changes and optimize interventions, including microbial interventions, equipment sanitation protocols and adjustments to evisceration techniques. License holders will also be able to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the Preventive Control Plan requirements under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. When operators establish their internal performance baseline using pre-chill microbiological monitoring data, they will be able to allow businesses to track their own performance over time, identify shifts in process control and pursue improvement initiatives.

Pre-chill or early-stage microbiological monitoring can be integral components of comprehensive poultry safety management systems. Authorities like the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) incorporate requirements for microbiological monitoring at various stages, including consideration of pre-chill data, to verify process control in poultry slaughter establishments.

The CFIA developed the following microbiological sampling measures to help food businesses comply with section 47 and 89 (1)(c) of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program supports direct compliance with hazard identification and analysis, which requires operators to identify and analyze biological hazards such as indicator organisms that reflect potential fecal or environmental contamination, which can pose a risk to the contamination of food.

Operators are also required to follow hazard control measures to prevent, eliminate and reduce identified hazards to an acceptable level using control measures shown by evidence to be effective. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is a tool to generate such evidence for controls applied during evisceration and dressing.

The Preventative Control Plan must be written and include a description of identified biological hazards, the control measures used to address them and evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of those control measures. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program results contribute directly to fulfilling this evidence.

The microbiological monitoring of poultry carcasses at pre-chill locations and comparison with post-chill locations will specifically help demonstrate that contamination is effectively minimized through evisceration and dressing process.

Operators can use sampling and testing procedures developed by provincial counterparts, industry associations, international partners or academic bodies if they can achieve the same outcome. The guidance must be tailored to a particular business, product or products and market requirements. The process must also meet foreign country requirements.

The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should be integrated to the Preventative Control Plan supporting the Process Verification Monitoring Program for general E.coli- Biotype I for raw poultry as a complement, not a duplicate. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should leverage the Process Verification Monitoring Program including processes such as random sampling principles, record-keeping systems or corrective action framework. This will ensure consistency and efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication.

There’s a distinction in the sampling point and primary focus; the Primary Verification Monitoring Program assesses the overall process outcome by testing carcasses after chilling, which shows the effects of slaughter, dressing and chilling interventions. In contrast, the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program provides specific verification data on the controls applied during evisceration and dressing by sampling before chilling. This paired sampling approach (pre-chill and post-chill) allows for a direct assessment of the microbial change occurring between these two important points.

Food businesses must comply with the law. They demonstrate compliance by ensuring commodities and processes they are responsible for demonstrate compliance. If a written Preventative Control Plan is required, the food business develops a Preventative Control Plan with supporting documents, monitors and maintains evidence of its implementation and verifies that all control measures are effective.

CFIA verifies the compliance of food businesses by inspection and sampling.

For producers who want to learn how to use the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program, they can learn more on the CFIA’s website.

The emergency response was deactivated July 2, the agency said, adding that surveillance and response for bird flu cases will continue under the purview of its influenza division.

The updates for bird flu were merged with routine updates for seasonal influenza, the agency’s website shows.

The number of people monitored and tested for bird flu will be reported on a monthly basis, the agency said, adding that it will no longer report infection rates in animals on its website.

The virus has infected 70 people, mostly farm workers, and killed one person over the past year as it spread aggressively among cattle herds and poultry flocks.

Experts have warned that further spread of bird flu raises the risk of it becoming more transmissible to humans.

The current public health risk from H5N1 bird flu remains low, CDC said, adding that it will continue to monitor the situation and scale up activities as needed.

The country’s response to bird flu has faced several disruptions this year, including from staff exodus at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the Trump administration’s wider efforts to shrink the federal workforce and the government cancelling a more than $700 million contract awarded to Moderna for the late-stage development of its bird flu vaccine for humans.

Emergency activation allows for additional support for a public health response, including staffing and other resources, to increase testing, surveillance and communications during an outbreak, according to CDC.

The CDC H5N1 bird flu response was activated April 4, 2024.

“Vaccination is a tool. It’s a very good tool when it exists, but it’s up to each country, region or group of countries to identify in which case it will be useful to use it or not,” Emmanuelle Soubeyran told Reuters ahead of the start of WOAH’s general assembly late last month.

France, which requires farmed ducks to be immunized against bird flu, has hailed its vaccination program as a success. Other countries, such as Mexico and China, have also tried vaccination to combat avian influenza.

Canadian poultry farms have been repeatedly hit by avian influenza, and across the border, U.S. dairy cattle have also joined the ranks of infected. So why don’t Canadian farmers immunize their birds?

“One more preventive measure, such as vaccination, would be welcomed by poultry producers,” said Wei Jia, manager of research and programs at Manitoba Egg Farmers.

“It’s a complicated topic, though. International policies on trade, national policies on vaccinations and monitoring protocol must be developed first.”

Canada’s supply managed poultry and egg sectors are largely concerned with domestic consumers. However, in 2024 they exported $1.18 billion worth of poultry, eggs, live poultry and hatching eggs, Statistics Canada data shows.

Vaccination could muddy the waters.

Vaccines use various methods to essentially trick the body into producing an immune response — gearing up to fight a disease.

Current poultry vaccination isn’t completely sterilizing, said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan.

This means that while vaccinated birds may not become ill, they could still be infected and might pose a biosecurity risk.

Countries that have implemented widespread vaccinations have seen new virus variants emerge that can circumvent the vaccine, said Rasmussen. These variants have been better adapted to infecting birds.

But on the upside, these strains are less likely to be transmitted to humans.

These jurisdictions saw fewer outbreaks that required culling of flocks, Rasmussen said, and have not seen transmission to humans.

“So, those vaccines are actually pretty successful,” she said.

Countries that have previously spurned vaccination may soon reconsider, she added, as flock losses pile up.

WOAH is working on global standards to distinguish vaccinated birds from infected ones, the organization said in its 2025 report on the state of the world’s animal health.

In co-operation with the International Alliance for Biological Standardization, it is developing surveillance standards for vaccinated poultry to establish monitoring systems that will “ensure vaccination does not create unnecessary trade barriers,” the report said.

For similar reasons, implementing a vaccine plan would require beefed-up surveillance for bird flu, said Manitoba chief veterinary officer Glen Duizer.

“If they’re vaccinated and not showing the disease, it’s harder to detect them,” Duizer said.

“If they do have the disease and you’re not seeing it, then there’s a lot of contact, a lot of movement that can happen that can spread the disease.”

In normal circumstances, avian influenza cases are detected when a farm worker notices poultry showing symptoms. Then, if a case is confirmed, surveillance would be stepped up for nearby barns or barns that had contact with the infected flock.

Manitoba would likely only decide to vaccinate chickens in the face of a mounting bird flu threat — for example, if there was a sharp spike in cases in the province or in a nearby jurisdiction, Duizer said. However, this makes timing the vaccines difficult.

Ideally, he said, birds would be vaccinated while still in the egg or as chicks at the hatchery.

“It’s easier to vaccinate at that stage versus having to go in and catch … 10,000 individual birds and inject them.”

If flocks at risk are well past the chick stage, vaccination would be tough to pull off quickly.

Given the cost and effort it would take to vaccinate and increase surveillance, Manitoba would have to see a mounting threat before it put a vaccine strategy into motion, Duizer said.

This year, Manitoba has seen two confirmed cases of avian influenza as of late last month. Before that, one case was confirmed in 2024 and two were found in 2023, according to Canadian Food Inspection Agency data.

In 2022, though, a year bird flu spread rapidly though Canada and the United States, the province suffered a more extensive spread. It posted 21 cases that year.

British Columbia saw 81 cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza between Oct. 21, 2024, and Jan. 11, 2025.

B.C. Poultry Association spokesperson Shawn Hall said that province has a research project on vaccines underway. While the association isn’t directly involved in that research, Hall said it would be supportive of new measures against the disease.

A spokesperson for B.C.’s agriculture minister of agriculture said it had a program in place to help the industry prepare for the risk of avian influenza, including through the development of new tools. However, it did not say if it was considering vaccination.

The spokesperson pointed to the CFIA as the agency responsible for vaccine decisions in Canada.

To date, the CFIA doesn’t have a plan in place for vaccinating poultry against avian influenza.

“In Canada, vaccination against HPAI is not permitted at this time,” a CFIA spokesperson said in a statement to Glacier FarmMedia.

Three avian influenza vaccines are approved for use in chickens but only for emergency preparedness. They’re not commercially available.

The CFIA has an avian influenza vaccination task force comprising industry groups, government and veterinary representatives. The group is exploring the pros and cons of a vaccination program, the CFIA’s website says.

“Any decision regarding vaccination against HPAI will be made by the CFIA and will be informed by task force discussions,” the spokesperson said.

“These are complex issues and conversations are ongoing as we learn more from both science and international experience.”

In the last 20 years, more than 633 million birds have died from bird flu infection or culling, WOAH says in The State of the World’s Animal Health.

Avian influenza has spread to new regions and new species of wild and domestic birds, marine mammals, livestock and pets. It has spilled over into humans and in some cases — such as a three-year-old girl in Mexico’s Coahuila state — resulted in death.

“The economic fallout has been severe, with major disruptions in international trade, affecting local poultry industries, and consumers of poultry products,” WOAH said.

“Though the risk of human infection remains low, the more mammalian species that are affected, the greater the possibility of the virus adapting to mammal-to-mammal, and potentially human, transmission.”

While strict biosecurity is still essential, “the relentless spread of the virus, despite aggressive containment efforts, demonstrates that more must be done,” WOAH said.

The organization suggests vaccination could complement other efforts by reducing virus circulation in and between flocks.

In laying hens, vaccination could be a useful tool to control the spread, Julian Madeley, director general of the World Egg Organization, said in the WOAH report.

“Newcastle disease serves as an example,” Madeley said.

“Once we had effective vaccination strategies, it became a manageable problem. Outbreaks still occur, but they no longer devastate the industry as they once did.”

“We need to continue advocating for vaccination as an additional tool, complemented by biosecurity and surveillance,” he said.

“We must ensure that best practice tools are made available to farms so that they can carry out these measures effectively.”

Party leader Yves-Francois Blanchet introduced Bill C-202 May 29, and on June 5 it was sent to the Senate without any debate. It follows Bill C-282 in the last Parliament and C-216 in the one before that. Neither of those bills made it fully through the parliamentary process.

The bill would amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to protect supply managed industries in future trade negotiations. Exporters don’t like that idea, while supply management proponents say they’ve given up enough.

Blanchet said he promised during the campaign to introduce the bill because it is important to Quebec’s economy and reminded MPs that all political parties say they support supply management.

“Once again, I note that all of the political parties in the House have indicated that they will support this initiative. I therefore hope that we can move forward quickly with the support of all members,” he said when introducing the bill.

He said the amendment deserved urgent attention.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance urged the Commons and the Senate to reject it.

“As with previous iterations of this bill, C-202 would undermine Canada’s agri-food sector, damage our trade relationships and harm the thousands of farmers, ranchers, processors and agri-food exporters who rely on open access to global markets to make a living,” said president Greg Northey in a news release.

CAFTA said the bill would have implications for all sectors of the economy, not just agriculture, and that sectoral carveouts in trade negotiations would put objectives at risk at a time when Canada should be more ambitious.

The organization urged MPs to not bypass parliamentary procedure and send it directly to the Senate, but they did.

The debate over supply management also continues outside of politics.

University of Saskatchewan agricultural economics professor professor Stuart Smyth called for the system to be phased out “for the greater good of the country.”

In a June 3 commentary for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Smyth said that would lower the cost of dairy and poultry products for consumers. He called supply management “an outdated, flawed and costly system” and an anti-competitive production model.

Dairy Farmers of Canada begged to differ.

For one thing, farmers don’t set retail prices, the organization said after reviewing the commentary.

“The prices of supply managed products have remained stable and generally in line or below inflationary trends in Canada,” it said in an emailed statement.

“In 2024, the average retail price of milk was almost equal to that of the United States at $1.64 per litre in Canada versus $1.44 per litre in the U.S.”

At the same time, the average prices of yogurt, natural cheese blocks and butter were similar or lower.

DFC said American and other dairy systems receive direct financial production subsidies, which means consumers pay twice — through taxes and at the store.

Smyth said farms would be larger and more efficient without the supply managed system. DFC said Canadian dairies are smaller than those in the U.S. but that doesn’t make them inefficient.

Smyth said the new government should phase out supply management by removing 10 percentage points of total quota each year for the next 10 years. He also said the government should reduce tariffs by the same amount in the same time frame to encourage competition.

“Allowing new and existing producers to increase production based on free market signals will greatly reduce the waste and inefficiencies that have long existed in supply management production systems, such as the practice of dumping excess milk,” Smyth wrote.

DFC has disputed a study earlier this year that estimated Canadian dairy farms dumped 6.8 billion litres of milk between 2012 and 2024.

Smyth also argued that dairy production could and should move to the Prairies because herds are already twice as large as the average Quebec herd and water is plentiful.

“Canadian dairy consumers are paying higher prices to subsidize small, inefficient Quebec dairies, while other dairies across Canada are dumping milk as they do not have enough quota to sell the full volume of milk they produce,” he said.

Smyth suggested four policies government could enact:

• Quota licences should be available nationally, rather than provincially.

• There should be a time-limited guarantee backstop for younger farmers who have used their quota as collateral.

• Financial institutions recognize the value of quota licences while the system is dismantled and not demand immediate repayment.

• The government should also provide a 10-year guarantee to farmers who demonstrate economic efficiencies and increase operating equity, thereby reducing their financial risk, before the system is officially dismantled.

Pigeon Lake Poultry Processors is no longer slaughtering and processing chickens and turkeys and is selling its equipment, said owner Brett Kikel, of Westerose, Alta.

“I am shutting the business down. I have had enough.”

In previous years, Kikel slaughtered and processed 60,000 to 70,000 chickens and 4,000 to 5,000 turkeys each year for producers who would in turn sell them at farmers’ markets or direct to customers. In Alberta, animals for sale must be provincially or federally inspected.

After seven years as owner of the facility, Kikel said the combination of finding staff, government regulations and a fight with the provincial government over composting rules has forced him out of business.

“I just can’t continue with the government rules.”

Changes to the province’s mobile slaughter licenses now allow mobile slaughter butchers to travel to farms and slaughter animals on farm without the same rigorous inspection services. The meat from on-farm slaughter can not be sold, but it does provide an option for producers who want to raise meat on their farm for their own consumption without having a provincial inspector monitor the process and the health of the birds.

Kikel said an ongoing legal battle with the province over how he composts the offal from the birds helped solidify his decision to no longer process birds. He will continue to process beef.

For producers like Mandy Melnyk of Meadow Creek Farms in Waskatenau, the closing of Pigeon Lake Processors was a huge financial blow and logistical blow to her farming operation.

“Now all of my processing costs are going to have to be upfront, which is very prohibitive for me,” she said.

Melnyk is asking her customers for an up front $400 deposit at the start of the season for those wanting 10 whole or cut birds.

“In the 2025 growing season, without deposits it will be very difficult to produce chicken this year,” she wrote to her customers.

In the past, Pigeon Lake Poultry Processors would pick up the birds from her northern Alberta farm, process the birds, cut them into pieces and deliver them back to her farm for sale. After searching, a local Hutterite colony has agreed to process the birds, but it is up to Melnyk to deliver the birds to the colony and then hire a refrigerated truck to drive the killed birds to Edmonton to a plant where they can be cut into pieces, the most popular way poultry is sold and eaten.

“For people who want to raise outdoor birds and sell them they now have a lot more hurdles to go through.”

“I want to say I’m grateful beyond grateful that the colony said yes because what would have happened to me if they had said no? Where would I have gone?”

While the Alberta government has no statistics on poultry raised on farms and sold through farmers’ markets, it is a popular way consumers can buy farm-raised chickens and turkeys.

“This just gives more power to industrial production and continues to be another nail in the coffin for small scale production and local farming. There are no private processing facilities for the public to be able to access for chicken processing,” said Melnyk.

Kikel said he is in the process of notifying his customers he is winding down his poultry operation.

“The issue of spent fowl misrepresentation is one that demands decisive action,” said Kody Blois, federal minister of agriculture and agri-food and rural economic development, and David J. McQuinty, federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, in a March 20 joint statement.

“This is fraud and it undermines consumers, our farmers, distorts our markets, and puts Canadian jobs at risk.”

Spent fowl misrepresentation is a form of food fraud that occurs when broiler chicken for import into Canada is intentionally labelled as spent fowl (old laying hens). Spent fowl is duty and tariff free when imported from the United States. Broiler chicken is not.

The duty free regulation is agreed upon under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

“Canadian chicken farmers have long advocated for decisive measures to address this issue,” Chicken Farmers of Canada said in a news release on Thursday.

“At its peak, fraudulent imports of spent fowl cost Canada 1,400 jobs, $105 million in economic contributions, $35 million in taxes, and at least $66 million in government revenues annually.”

“In 2020, Canada imported the equivalent of 77 per cent of the U.S.’s entire spent fowl production – despite the fact that the U.S. exports spent fowl to countries other than Canada, and that there is also a substantial American domestic demand for spent fowl meat,” the organization said on its website. “Clearly something is amiss.”

Chicken Farmers of Canada said it expects the commitment will mean DNA testing to distinguish between spent fowl and broiler chicken meat.

“Research funded by Chicken Farmers of Canada, in collaboration with Trent University, has already developed a reliable DNA test to accurately differentiate between the two types of meat,” it said.

Since 2010, CBSA and CFIA inspections and verifications have resulted in over $361 million in duties, interest and penalties on misdeclared spent fowl, the federal government said in the statement.