The “One Health” approach and Canada’s C-293 legislation
As people around the world are absorbing the crises in the Russia-Ukraine and Hamas-Israel wars, the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, and rising tensions between China and United States, the World Health Organization (WHO) continues, largely unnoticed, to methodically advance its agenda of securing a Pandemic Treaty and entrenching its International Health Regulations (IHRs), passed earlier this year.
The new international treaty document will grant the WHO the authority to direct a global response effort during the time of a global pandemic – that is, either an actual pandemic emergency or a perceived pandemic. With the treaty ratified, the WHO will have the authority to unilaterally pronounce a global pandemic that, in turn, would set into play the conditions for the WHO to dictate emergency health and safety measures for its member countries. Also, there are current behind-the-scenes initiatives to expand the WHO’s scope by redefining what constitutes a pandemic beyond a health emergency to include other global crises (again, real or perceived) -- including climate change.
Unfamiliar with the WHO Pandemic Treaty? Read here and here for requisite background information.
While the treaty document is being worked on by the WHO technocrats in Geneva, the Trudeau government is developing an authoritative framework for Canada that can enact the conditions set out by the WHO during the next pandemic crisis. As if by stealth the government has advanced a piece of legislation, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness (C-293), which was passed in the House of Commons in June 2024 and is now in the Senate awaiting debate.
It cannot be overstated that Canadians need to be aware of this legislation and what the implications will be should it pass the Senate and become the law of the land.
What is the C-293 Legislation?
Bill C-293 is known by parliamentarians as the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act. It has an expressed purpose to “prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to the Government of Canada’s efforts to do so.” The legislation requires the Minister of Health, in consultation with other ministers, to prepare a pandemic plan for the country. The minister is obligated to appoint an individual from officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada as a national coordinator to manage all activities in a pandemic emergency.
The legislation was introduced by backbench Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith in June 2022, while Canadians were still making sense of COVID-19, the vaccination process, and the various lockdowns and restrictions. (Although MP Erskine-Smith is the sponsor of C-293, nobody believes he is the author. It is a sleight of hand that has the legislation sponsored by a backbench MP, so that the Liberals can state it is not being advanced by the government.)
Bill C-293 was debated at second reading in February 2023 but not reviewed at the legislative committee until the fall 2023. It then lingered on the order paper until this past June, when the legislation was slipped through third reading of the House of Commons. Bill C-239 was bundled for passage in a batch of MPs votes at the end of their spring parliamentary session – arranged conveniently as MPs were running out of the Chamber for their summer recess.
The legislation, as passed by MPs, can be read here: Bill C-293.
One can keep track of the legislation’s progress through the Senate on the LegisInfo webpages.
The “One Health” approach
Central to this pandemic preparedness legislation of MP Erskine-Smith is the concept of the One Health approach, a notion that is championed by the United Nations (UN) and the WHO. The C-293 legislation makes reference to the One Health approach, defining it as a “multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface.”
The UN has defined the One Health approach in this way: “One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.”
The UN identifies a widening scope of activities that will be linked to health measures and, therefore, are to be managed via the One Health approach during a pandemic. These activities include: animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas (ed. – land use management).
In February 2024, the WHO called for countries to “scale up in implementing the One Health approach.” The WHO identified the four lead agencies working to advance this agenda worldwide: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Environment Programme, the WHO, and the World Organization for Animal Health. A primary focus of work is management of food systems with an expressed purpose to strengthen the global food infrastructure (specifically referencing “agriculture, livestock farming and trade, wildlife hunting and trade, aquaculture, animal products processing, handling, distribution and consumer practices”).
With the One Health concept so well developed by the WHO and the UN, it is most interesting to note the explanation given by MP Erskine-Smith when he spoke about “his legislation” in the House of Commons. (My apologies for such a lengthy quote but I wanted to draw attention to how all-encompassing this One Health approach is intended to be – and how all-encompassing the Liberals wish to have it implemented in Canada.)
“Now, a critical element here, when we draw from the literature, is that the plan has to be based on a “One Health” approach. For those who do not know what a “One Health” approach is, it is a relatively simple idea, although it can be a challenge sometimes in how we apply it, because of how holistic it is. It is this idea that we cannot pull apart human health, animal health and environmental health, that these are interconnected ideas and we have to think of them as one health.
We know this, and if we read the literature from the United Nations Environment Programme, from IPBES or from any number of experts, including Canadian experts in zoonotic diseases, they will tell us that zoonosis presents the greatest risk in relation to pandemics. Taking deforestation as an example, the spillover risk that can occur when humans are obviously going to come into closer contact with animals as a result of that deforestation creates not only a challenge to the environment, as it is a question of environmental health, but also then a question of human health, because of that spillover risk. When we run down a list of factors, and there are different reports on this, overwhelmingly the focus has to be on a “One Health” approach.
I will read from the United Nations Environment Programme, which states:
This report confirms and builds on the conclusions of the FAO-OIE-WHO Tripartite Alliance and many other expert groups that a “One Health” approach is the optimal method for preventing as well as responding to zoonotic disease outbreaks and pandemics.
Therefore, there has to be a focus on a “One Health” approach.
There also, of course, has to be a whole-of-government approach. It is not enough for the Minister of Health to work up a plan. The Minister of Health has to work with other ministers, break down silos in the federal government and ensure that we are putting ourselves on the best footing we possibly can to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The Minister of Industry has a role to play in terms of ensuring that we have vaccine manufacturing capacity and manufacturing capacity for essential treatments and tests. There is a role for the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Transport to play with respect to border controls. There is obviously a role for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to play with respect to global health equity, which is an issue that, unfortunately, we have, as wealthier countries, utterly failed on in a serious way in the course of this pandemic. There also ought to be collaboration, and this is in keeping with that idea of a “One Health” approach, with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment.”
Indeed, the One Health approach is set in place to have the whole-of-government and its pandemic response managed by a single, designated public health coordinator.
Opposing views and concerns to Bill C-293
In order to appreciate the lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience, the Conservatives have called on the government to conduct a public inquiry into federal pandemic management before establishing a new authoritative framework and adopting the One Health approach as the C-293 legislation sets out. But the Liberals rejected outright any such public inquiry. The government instead signaled it would conduct a closed-door review of its COVID-19 response by government advisors to the Minister of Health.
MP Ted Falk, who was the C-293 pointperson for the Conservatives called the government out for the inadequacies of a closed-door review, “Canadians will never get the answers they deserve if the ministers who perpetuated or promoted many of the failures, abuses and violations of Charter rights that we have seen over the past two years are the same ones tasked with reviewing their own government’s response.”
At second reading of the legislation in the House of Commons, MP Falk made these points:
“Let us face it: Transparency, accountability and, frankly, honesty are hardly synonymous with the government. We have seen first-hand much of the misinformation propagated by these ministers. That is why I propose, before embarking on some of the elements contained in Bill C-293, that we need a full non-partisan national inquiry into how governments at all levels have handled the response to COVID-19, because as I reflect on the past two years, there are too many questions. These are questions that have never been answered by government, and in many cases, no one in government or the media has even had the courage to publicly ask them.
Herein we have the first major issue in the government's handling of COVID. It is the “my way or the highway, we know best and do not dare ask questions about what we are doing” approach that the governments across this country have taken….
The media also failed in their objectivity to ask questions, choosing instead to parrot government talking points as truth, sowing fear and division as they quietly pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies. They refused to allow different points of view. They did not ask the tough questions, and they silenced or mocked anyone who did.”
In fact, there are many serious concerns regarding the pandemic preparedness legislation. Still, Canadians can be forgiven for not knowing anything about the legislation or its implications. As lawyer Lisa Miron has observed, “Nobody has drawn it to Canadians’ conscious.”
So, let’s review the core arguments of the legislation’s outspoken critics – concerned Canadians like Lisa Miron and the medical and legal professionals at the newly formed advocacy organization called the World Council for Health (WCH) Canada.
WCH Canada was activated in our country in June 2024 and Canada is now one of 37 countries with a WCH organization arguing for citizens’ health, freedom and national sovereignty. The WCH Canada mission can be read here.
WCH Canada sounds the alarm about the threat of a “One World Government.” The organization baldly states:
“Canada is standing on the brink of losing its national sovereignty. The federal government’s alignment with the United Nations is pushing Canadians toward a New World Order, where control is consolidated under global entities like the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization. These organizations have infiltrated our institutions, placing individuals willing to surrender our national sovereignty into positions of power. Whether through International Health Treaties, Pandemic Treaties, or domestic laws with similar provisions, these entities are determined to exert control over us.”
Last week WCH Canada held an informative press conference, in part, on the threats posed by the C-293 legislation. The session was started by Ted Kuntz, who is the president of Vaccine Choice Canada, chair of the National Citizens Inquiry, and a board member for WCH Canada. Kuntz is known for his fierce arguments for protecting Canadians’ medical choice and demanding honesty, transparency, and accountability of the government.
Kuntz had an ominous message for Canadians regarding the pandemic preparedness legislation:
“Bill C-293 is a significant existential threat to not only Canada as a country but to our individual rights and freedoms as citizens in this country. It appears that the bill is purposely designed to be vague, to be broad, such that it impacts every aspect of our lives – from our water to our food to our land, to our access to health care, to our ability to travel – all under the guise of either an emergency pandemic or a climate change emergency. What it does effectively is that it delegates the responsibility and authority from us an individuals and from our elected representatives in this country, to unelected foreign entities that have an agenda that is completely at odds with individual rights and freedoms.
… what I read in C-293 document actually eliminates our ability to have freedom of medical choice and informed consent.
The lack of acknowledgement in our media, the lack of acknowledgement in the Canadian public suggests that this is quite intentional, that they do not want us to participate in this decision. It is a decision that is being made for us, under the radar. Again, I suggest what we are facing is an existential threat.”
The WCH Canada press conference included lawyer Lisa Miron who provided her detailed analysis of the legislation. Miron stated that the One Health approach is a “totalitarian approach” that “extinguishes the idea of jurisdiction” and provides for the possibility of “perpetual emergency powers because the risk of a pandemic is not defined.” She considers the position of the designated pandemic coordinator as vaulted as a “Czar” who is beyond reproach of the country’s elected officials.
Miron’s most biting criticisms were concerning the many undefined terms in the legislation, and the word salad phraseology that has produced clauses that are a “black box of power” and provide for “omnipotent jurisdiction” in dictating to Canadians. She concludes with the observation that C-293 paves the path for “a totalitarian coup.”
Lisa Miron’s assessment of C-293 is something all Canadians should have the benefit of hearing. She can be found on Substack @LawyerLisa. Start here with this post: Bill C-293 has not passed people.
From my own research, here is a shortlist of the major faults and some concerns that must be addressed with C-293.
Vagueness in the legislation around definitions of terms
No certainty on whether the final authority for the country’s pandemic responsiveness lies within Canada
No limit or check on the authority of the pandemic coordinator
No recognition of the country’s provincial authority over health care
There is a suggested yet undefined authority over Canadians’ land use, including farmers’ operations and the agri-food industry
There is a reference to a national and international surveillance network to monitor health status and travel
There is a reference to administrators with powers to regulate unspecified commercial activities – so what are the implications for work and the economy?
There is another reference to administrators with powers to regulate communications – so what are the implications for freedom of speech and state censorship?
References to “collaboration” are vague – will collaboration with international bodies supersede national interests?
It is not conspiratorial to question…
It is not conspiratorial to question the C-293 legislation’s vagueness and lack of transparency. Is it a stretch to think this legislation could very well lead to Canada’s pandemic coordinator prioritizing global interests over our national interests?
Can Canadians trust this Trudeau government or should we be demanding greater clarification with the legislation’s definitions and its terms and conditions during a pandemic period?
Can Canadians trust this Trudeau government or should we be demanding greater clarification about how Canada will respond to the WHO and its “recommendations” during a global pandemic crisis?
The absence of thorough oversight or parliamentary approval raises all kinds of red flags. Then there are questions of transparency and accountability concerning the authoritative regime being established:
What is to be shared with Canadians from the closed-door COVID-19 review – facts that may be instructive on how to respond to the next pandemic crisis
Why is the Minister of Health the person to pick the pandemic coordinator?
Why is it stipulated that the coordinator must be selected from the Public Health Agency of Canada?
What reach will the pandemic coordinator have over Canada’s food industry and Canadians’ food supply?
Will Canada’s One Health approach expand in a similar manner to the WHO’s authority during a pandemic period, which may include the ability to call emergencies for an actual or perceived global crisis with global warming and the environment?
And there is a serious implication for individual liberty and freedom as well as the right of medical choice and informed consent. From this legislation, Canadians do not know how their government or designated authority will dictate directions for a new vaccination process and whether it will include mandates for masking, isolating, social distancing, travel restrictions, or lockdown routine – and what the country’s responsibility / liability is to those who may suffer from vaccine injury.
Canadians need to be aware of the ramifications of Bill C-293
Keep in mind that the Trudeau Liberals will gaslight anyone who is concerned about Bill C-293, citing the criticism rings of conspiracy theory — and the legacy media will not report on the issues surrounding this legislation. This is simply deceitful.
Yet, there is still time for Canadians to act to stop the pandemic preparedness legislation.
Learn more about the legislation and follow its progress in the Senate. Stay informed of the debates; follow the WCH Canada news feed. Contact Senators and Conservative MPs with your concerns.
In Canada, parliamentarians have not debated the issues surrounding the approval of the WHO agenda. Our MPs have not debated the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, its IHRs, or the C-293 legislation beyond a few MP speakers and a brief committee review. So, there is still hope given that our elected representatives have not ratified anything as of yet.
With the Trudeau government there is a deliberate code of silence regarding global versus national interests. So, the onus is on Canadians to speak out. It is on groups and individual Canadians to become informed of the agendas of the WHO, UN and WEF, and then make contact with their MPs, with those parliamentarians they have some acquaintance, and with lead Conservative MPs who will likely be forming government later next year.
The globalists’ power plays to establish their authority above and apart from Canadian Parliament must not go unchallenged.
To start, the C-293 legislation needs to be rejected by the Senate, the IHRs need to be debated by Canadian parliamentarians, and the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty must not be signed by Canada.
For paid subscribers, let’s continue this conversation below. I have links to share and will be posting postscripts and readers’ comments so that we might stay abreast of the unfolding story with Bill C-293 and the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty.