Bill C-293: Pandemic Safeguard or Government Overreach?
A federal bill advancing through the Senate is drawing sharp criticism from Alberta’s government and agricultural stakeholders, who argue it risks federal overreach and threatens the stability of Canada’s agri-food sector. Bill C-293, introduced by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, aims to establish a pandemic prevention framework but has sparked backlash for what critics describe as vague language and potentially sweeping implications.
Vague Language
The proposed Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act mandates the federal government to create a detailed plan for preventing and responding to future pandemics. The bill emphasizes the importance of coordination between different levels of government, the implementation of surveillance systems, and to address key risk factors and improve transparency in Canada’s pandemic response. However, critics say the bill grants federal authorities discretionary power to regulate or even shut down operations deemed “high-risk,” with limited clarity on what those criteria might be.
Alberta’s Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation, RJ Sigurdson, expressed concerns that Bill C-293 could enable federal public health officials to shut down agricultural facilities during a crisis without clear and objective criteria. In a press release, Sigurdson warned that the discretionary powers in the bill could disrupt meat supply chains, destabilize related sectors, and lead to widespread impacts across the food system.
Legal experts and agricultural representatives have raised concerns about Section 3(2)(l) of Bill C-293, which calls for measures to regulate commercial activities that contribute to pandemic risks, specifically mentioning “industrial animal agriculture.” Critics argue that the bill's lack of clear definitions for "high-risk" activities creates uncertainty and could lead to broad interpretations by federal officials. This ambiguity, they warn, raises fears of potential blanket shutdowns of key agricultural industries if certain operations are deemed hazardous during a future crisis.
Provincial Jurisdiction and Industry Concerns
Alberta’s government argues that Bill C-293 encroaches on provinces’ jurisdiction over agriculture, which officials say is protected under Section 95 of the Constitution. The provincial government and agricultural leaders warn that the bill’s provisions could allow the federal government to impose regulations or mandates that bypass local health measures and fail to account for region-specific data and conditions.
“Local governing bodies are in the best position to create emergency preparedness plans that suit the unique needs of their province and territory,” said Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange.
Agricultural leaders have echoed Alberta’s concerns, warning that the bill’s emphasis on promoting “alternative proteins” and phasing out practices deemed “high-risk” could undermine critical sectors.
“Our Alberta family farms are committed to producing safe, high-quality chicken while maintaining the highest standards of biosecurity. We support pandemic preparedness, but Bill C-293 unfairly targets animal agriculture and could threaten the livelihoods of our farm families. We are asking the federal government to ensure this bill is amended so farmers can continue to feed Canadians without facing unnecessary restrictions,” said David Hyink, chair of Alberta Chicken Producers.
MP’s Motivations Questioned
Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who introduced the bill, has consistently dismissed allegations of an ulterior motive, emphasizing that the legislation is focused on managing health risks to prevent future pandemics. He has argued that Bill C-293 does not aim to eliminate specific industries or introduce sweeping new regulatory powers, but rather to create a framework for mitigating pandemic threats through targeted measures and enhanced preparedness.
In defending the bill, Erskine-Smith characterized criticisms from media outlets like Rebel News as “alt-right” conspiracy theories. He dismissed claims that the bill would cede sovereignty to the World Health Organization or mandate drastic dietary changes. Instead, Erskine-Smith, who himself is a vegan, says that the legislation aims to address specific risks through what he calls evidence-based measures and expert consultations, drawing on reports from bodies like the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
As is often the case, the debate surrounding Bill C-293 has been muddied by hyperbolic rhetoric from some media personalities, who have characterized the bill as part of a covert agenda to force Canadians to eat bugs—providing an easy straw man for the Liberal government to dismiss legitimate concerns.
Erskine-Smith acknowledged that Section 3(2)(l) of the bill, which calls for regulating commercial activities linked to pandemic risks, has attracted criticism. He defended this section by citing concerns over antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases, highlighting the risks associated with high-density industrial animal farming. According to Erskine-Smith, the bill aims to strengthen biosecurity standards and encourage practices that reduce the likelihood of future pandemics, such as phasing out activities involving “high-risk species” like mink farming.
Despite the Liberal MP’s assurances, critics argue that his rhetoric downplays the potential consequences of vague legislative language that could lead to overreach, reminiscent of the frenzy and public distrust that marked the COVID-19 era. They point to the federal government’s significant loss of trust during this period, citing issues like the ArriveCan scandal as emblematic of a broader pattern of what can be described as mismanagement and overreach at best.
Erskine-Smith reassured the public that the bill doesn’t grant the federal government any new powers, offering his reasoning: “I know this because I wrote the bill.” Suffice it to say, his assurances have offered little comfort.
‘The Food Professor’
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, known as "The Food Professor," has been a prominent voice criticizing Bill C-293, arguing that the legislation could disrupt traditional protein markets and that promoting “alternative proteins” represents undue government interference in consumer choices. Charlebois warns that the bill specifically targets livestock production in favour of promoting plant-based alternatives.
Charlebois is a professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University and serves as the senior director of the university’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab. He is frequently cited for his research on food pricing, food security, and agricultural trends, and co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, where he discusses developments in the food and agricultural sectors.
While some of Charlebois’s claims on their own have validity, the Food Professor himself has had his motivations questioned.
For example, a report by The Orchard revealed that in 2018 he received a $60,000 grant from the Weston Foundation. The Weston family owns Loblaw, Canada’s largest grocery chain, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. While Charlebois has publicly defended large grocery chains amidst rising food prices, many suggest that his frequent media appearances and op-eds could be influenced by corporate interests, despite his denial of any personal financial gain from the grant.
Further, there is several inconsistencies in Charlebois's explanations, including the timeline of the grant and its purpose. Charlebois has defended his independence, asserting that the funds were strictly for student research.
A Need for Clarification and Transparency
As Bill C-293 awaits further debate in the Senate, questions remain about its necessity and implications for Canada’s agricultural and public health sectors. Proponents argue that the bill is a proactive measure to prevent future pandemics, while critics caution that vague language and potential overreach could lead to economic disruptions and federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, echoing tensions over government measures seen during the COVID-19 era.
