Pandemic Preparedness Bill Sparks Controversy

Friday, February 21, 2025

Ag sector concerned about ‘imprecise language.’

By Matt Jones

The recent arrival of a private members’ bill on pandemic preparedness to the Canadian Senate has caused concerns in the agricultural sector.

Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, is aimed at building on the lessons learned from previous disease outbreaks including COVID-19, H1N1, Zika, Ebola and others. However, some observers are concerned that the bill unfairly targets agriculture.

“The concept of the bill is not a bad one,” says Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie. “But we certainly have concerns with some of the potential implications of one particular section of the bill. There’s a section that has some real concerning language that’s really pushing the production of alternative proteins and really trying to do some regulation around animal agriculture, as well as using terms like ‘phase out high-risk species’ without defining what that actually means.”

Currie says that the usage of terminology such as ‘regulate’ and ‘phase out,’ as opposed to less combative options such as ‘assess,’ is extremely concerning to the industry, particularly since such language was not used in parts of the bill that addressed other industries.

“It’s really making the assumption that animal agriculture here in Canada is contributing to the spread of disease, which is not true and is not supported by any evidence,” says Currie.

Chris Procyk, vice-president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, sees the biggest issue as a lack of definitions for the terms that are used in the bill.

“There’s just some very broad descriptions of things,” says Procyk. “We’d like to see more specific definitions. Any time there’s a bill that comes out that’s very broad and all-encompassing, it leaves a lot of wiggle room. It needs to be more precise and more direct in what they’re shooting for.”

Procyk notes that no one in the agriculture sector is against the idea of a pandemic preparedness bill – they welcome it, in fact.

“Any person or any producer, we want to have plans and to be prepared for stuff like that,” says Procyk. “That part is good; you need to learn from what just happened so you don’t make the same mistakes again. Let’s assess, let’s learn, let’s see what we can do differently and then let’s use that information to see how we can be more prepared. But the bill wants to drill right down into regulating right away.”

Alberta Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdson has also taken a stand against the bill, echoing the sentiments that it singles out the agriculture and food industry with loose and imprecise language open to drastic interpretation.

Sigurdson has written an open letter addressing the issue.

“As mentioned in the letter to the AAFC minister and Alberta senators, the senate should consider amendments to create more flexible language so we can avoid unintended consequences,” says Sigurdson. “We encourage the federal government to cooperate and come back to the table to work with producers to get language that better reflects the current efforts.”

Currie says he hopes to see either that section of the bill removed entirely, or at least to change the particular language he was concerned about, such as ‘phase out’ and ‘regulate.’

Meant for mink farming

While representatives of the agriculture sector have raised reasonable concerns about the language of the bill, there have also been attacks from far-right commentators and media sources who alleged that the bill supported a secret vegan agenda and mandated vegetable proteins.

The bill’s author, Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, posted a response to criticisms of the bill on his Substack.

Erskine-Smith writes, regarding the sections of the bill that aim to regulate commercial activities it sees as a pandemic risk, that high densities of genetically similar animals increase infectious disease risk, pointing to avian and swine flus as examples.

“I had biosecurity rules in mind here, which shouldn’t be controversial,” writes Erskine-Smith. “The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s chief veterinary officer has testified that ‘most on-farm biosecurity standards are voluntary’ at the moment.”

In his summary, Erskine-Smith did not include the full context of Dr. Mary Jane Ireland’s testimony, which continued with “While these standards are voluntary, several industry associations have integrated parts of them into their mandatory on-farm programs. This collaborative effort between industry associations and producers has promoted the use and adherence to on-farm biosecurity measures and these measures, combined with other regulatory requirements, help to reduce the threat of disease spread and to maintain market access.”

In response to the assertion that the bill mandates the use of alternative proteins, Erskine-Smith argues that the bill encourages the promotion of plant-based meat and cellular agriculture, but does not mandate them.

In response to the concerns about the language around phasing out activities that involved high-risk species, Erskine-Smith says that section was meant to address activities such as mink farming, which was banned by the British Columbia government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While Erskine-Smith’s response regarding ‘high-risk species’ may be cold comfort for farmers who are concerned about the vague language used, it may help that Erskine-Smith acknowledges that he doesn’t feel the bill is ready to be passed in its current form.

“When I testified at the Health Committee, I made it clear that I not only welcomed but encouraged amendments,” writes Erskine-Smith, noting that he believes “there would have been a series of amendments to the bill at the House committee had the Conservatives not filibustered the entire process.”

Bill C-293’s second reading is marked as ‘in progress’ and has been subject to other impassioned discussions beyond agriculture. Several members have argued that the bill avoids a full and transparent inquiry into the federal government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The bill’s proposal that the Minister of Health and other government ministers be the ones to put together or even make up the advisory committee to review their own response to the coronavirus is, frankly, quite ridiculous,” said Winnipeg Conservative MP Ted Falk. BF