What is the 'pandemic bill' and why Alberta farmers are upset about it
Toronto MP who sponsored C-293 says agriculture groups shouldn't be concerned
In late October, Alberta's Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdson stood behind a podium at a news conference and said a new federal bill would impose "catastrophically damaging" regulations on the province's animal farmers.
Bill C-293 would do this, Sigurdson said, by granting Ottawa the authority to close operations it considers to be "high risk" during a potential future pandemic (such as livestock operations and meat-processing plants) and by mandating "the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians," upsetting supply chains and threatening farmers' livelihoods.
Flanking him were representatives of the province's beef, poultry and pork industries, who echoed the minister's statements.
Several days later, Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who sponsored Bill C-293 and represents the Toronto riding of Beaches-East York, told the Calgary Eyeopener that the legislation is not some underhanded move to phase out the animal farming sector at large, as some critics have suggested. He said it would set out a plan to reduce the possibility of the industry triggering another pandemic.
"[The bill] is not about eliminating broad commercial activities in this country.… That is absolutely ridiculous," said Erskine-Smith.
"But we've got to manage and reduce risks within agriculture."
The sticking point for the province's animal agriculture groups is what some members describe as the bill's unclear language. They're requesting amendments to clarify the legislation before it moves any further.
"It's not that we are against emergency preparedness and prevention, it's that we want clarity and confidence of what [the bill] may bring to the table if passed," said Brodie Haugan, chair of the Alberta Beef Producers.
"When there's a misunderstanding of language, it can be interpreted in many different ways and that creates uncertainty and confusion.… What we're looking for is leadership to create clarity around that."
The bill has yet to be passed by the Senate but reached its third reading in the House of Commons this past summer.
On social media, where it has been dubbed the "vegan bill," C-293 has continued to garner comments since it was introduced in the summer of 2022. Some responses have condemned it as a vessel for federal overreach.
LISTEN | Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith explains what he hopes Bill C-293 will achieve:
Erskine-Smith is a vegan, and he was asked on the Calgary Eyeopener if his values would sway his decision-making in the future.
"If you had your way, would you eliminate industrial poultry or beef farming in Canada?" asked host Loren McGinnis.
"No, that's ridiculous," replied Erskine-Smith.
What does Bill C-293 say?
So, what's in Bill C-293? And what could it actually mean for Alberta producers if it's passed? We break it down.
Known as the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, Bill C-293 lays out plans for how the government should mitigate the risks of another pandemic from occurring, and how it should respond if another one does happen.
The bill is based on a "One Health" approach, which is a framework that highlights the connections between human health and animal and ecosystem health. It originated after the 2003 SARS pandemic but has been given renewed focus since the COVID-19 pandemic.
It covers a wide range of topics, from vaccine manufacturing capacity to deforestation.
The section of the bill that pertains to animal agriculture calls for measures to:
- Reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance.
- Phase out commercial activities that "disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk," particularly those that involve "high-risk species."
- Promote activities that could help reduce pandemic risk, including the "production of alternative proteins."
- Regulate activities that could contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.
Responding to Minister Sigurdson's comments, Erskine-Smith said he doesn't consider the production of alternative proteins to be in competition with the livestock industry.
"We need to deliver supply to meet [the] growing demand for protein through two ways: biosecure meat coming from Canadian livestock producers, and the pulse industry, chickpea producers, lentil producers, other major economic drivers for this country, for alternative proteins," he said.
"We can deliver both. I don't know why we are putting these against each other."
Erskine-Smith also said that neither beef or poultry farming contribute a disproportionate risk to causing another pandemic, and for that reason, they wouldn't be "phased out."
An example of animal farming that could be considered "high risk," he added, would be mink farming, which the B.C. government has already decided to shut down.
The section of the bill that would pertain to conventional animal farming, said Erskine-Smith, would be the reduction of risks posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the regulation of activities relating to biosecurity.
What are the risks of industrial farming?
AMR happens when antibiotics are no longer useful or fail completely, allowing antibiotic resistant bacteria to spread easier among people and animals. AMR can occur in livestock farming when antibiotics are overused or misused.
Biosecurity, on the other hand, refers to a set of practices meant to prevent or eliminate the introduction and spread of disease within the livestock industry.
Diego Nobrega, a Canada Research Chair in antimicrobial resistance and One Health, and an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, said industrial livestock farming can create a perfect breeding ground for diseases, depending on how animals are cared for and housed.
For example, animals housed indoors as opposed to those that are pasture-grazed present a higher risk for disease contraction.
The question, said Nobrega, is how often are diseases contracted in animals passed over to the humans in close contact with them?
"It's hard to pinpoint the exact risks, but we know that cross-species transmissions are pretty uncommon," he said in an emailed statement.
"That's why agriculture is generally seen as low risk for sparking a new pandemic. Of course, the actual risk depends on factors like the type of virus, how animals are housed, and how much contact people have with zoonotic viruses."
Ryder Lee, general manager of the Canadian Cattle Association, said singling out the livestock industry for AMR is unfair because it's a concern in the public health sphere as well.
He added that despite AMR being top of mind for those in the animal farming industry, the bill implies the sector isn't doing enough.
"Saying we just need to regulate more doesn't take into account that people doing [this] are highly motivated to protect the health of their animals and their families and their customers."
Mark Olson, who lives near Cremona, Alta, is a former farmer who now works in the agriculture technology sector. He runs a startup that helps farmers access new technologies to improve the health, sustainability, traceability, and performance of their herds.
He said Bill C-293 is redundant because of the work that is already done relating to AMR and biosecurity in the industry.
"[The bill] should be talking about amendments to the existing acts and regulations, not a whole new act."
"Canada has world leading institutions, mechanisms, processes and technology to deal with animal health and its impact on human health. We have the best livestock traceability system in the world. The fact that this bill doesn't refer to any of that and doesn't, you know … doesn't refer to this, one is only left with the assumption that the work wasn't done to understand that."
Olson noted there is always room for improvement in AMR technology, but he wishes the government was going about it in a more collaborative way.
What impacts the bill could have if passed
Erskine-Smith said he's open to amendments to the bill, adding he would encourage tweaks in its language when he next speaks at the Senate.
But if C-293 is passed as it stands, Eric Adams, who teaches law at the University of Alberta, said it won't grant federal powers any new legal authority. That's because the bill is, essentially a planning document.
"No government can turn to a planning document or legislation about a planning document and say, 'Well, there's our authorization to shut down your city or invade provincial jurisdiction.'
"The law doesn't work that way."
In his opinion, the bill is uncommon but isn't anything to be overly concerned about. He added, however, that he understands how some could interpret it differently.
"I think it's always a healthy dynamic in a democracy for people … to press against the implications of broad words used in law. You know, what would that mean in practice? Could that be used for this purpose? Those are good questions to be asking of the laws that parliaments and legislatures are enacting."
Adams believes the language of the bill, which farming groups have called vague, is likely written that way by design.
"If you're dealing with a future emergency [the] particular aspects of which are completely unknown, the government may not want to take anything off the table," said Adams.
"In doing that kind of crystal-ball forecasting, trying to put the government on notice to be more nimble in the future, when and if a public health emergency arises, that [language is] necessarily going to be at a very general level without deep specifics about what's going to actually happen."
Haugan, with Alberta Beef Producers, said Erskine-Smith's response to their critiques of C-293 haven't changed his position.
"It doesn't, I guess, curb any of our concerns," he said.
"It is interesting to better understand the direction that everyone has coming into the understanding of this bill. But … the current bag of wording that is used within the bill still has major concerns for us in our industry."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
