British Columbia Ostrich Cull: What Happened and Why Now

Generated Title: B.C.'s New Sick Day Rules: A Band-Aid on a Bullet Wound?

The British Columbia government has rolled out new regulations limiting when employers can demand sick notes from employees. The stated goals are noble: easing the burden on doctors and preventing the further spread of illness. On the surface, it seems like a win-win, but let's dig into the numbers.

The Claim vs. The Reality

The government claims these new rules, preventing employers from requiring notes for the first two absences of up to five days each year, will significantly reduce the administrative load on physicians. Health Minister Josie Osborne emphasizes that this allows people to recover at home without unnecessary doctor visits. Labour Minister Jennifer Whiteside adds that unnecessary appointments take time away from patients who need to see doctors, don't help people get better, and risk spreading illness.

The Canadian Medical Association estimates that B.C. doctors wrote about 1.6 million sick notes last year. If we assume that each absence requiring a note lasted the maximum of five days (a generous assumption, I admit), and that these new rules eliminate the need for a note for the first two such absences, we're potentially looking at a reduction of 10 days' worth of sick notes per employee per year. If every employee took advantage of the full allowance.

But here's where the rosy picture starts to fade. How many employees actually take zero sick days per year? How many only take one? The new rules only affect those who would have previously needed a note for their first and second absences. Those already taking more than two absences are unaffected. So, the potential reduction of 1.6 million sick notes is likely a vast overestimation.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Why not just eliminate sick notes entirely? If the goal is to reduce administrative burdens and keep sick people out of clinics, why retain any requirement for notes at all? The two-absence limit seems arbitrary, a compromise that satisfies no one completely.

The Ostrich in the Room

While B.C. tinkers with sick day policies, another story unfolds in Edgewood, B.C.: the final chapter of the Universal Ostrich Farms saga. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has completed its "active operations," culminating in the humane cull of 314 ostriches after a bird flu outbreak. The carcasses, eggs, and other materials were disposed of through "deep burial" at a local landfill. For more details, see the Active operations on British Columbia ostrich farm completed report.

The owners of the farm fought the cull order for ten months, arguing that the surviving ostriches showed no signs of illness and possessed "herd immunity." Their pleas reached as far as U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who urged the CFIA to reconsider. Dr. Mehmet Oz even offered his Florida ranch as a sanctuary for the birds.

Despite these efforts, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the final appeal, sealing the ostriches' fate. The CFIA maintains that the cull was necessary to prevent the virus from dangerously mutating, particularly if the birds were exposed to wildlife. The agency also states that professional marksmen were used, and the shootings were completed under veterinary supervision.

Katie Pasitney, whose mother co-owns the farm, described the cull as "inhumane" and the gunfire as "overwhelming." Farm supporter Janice Tyndall said she listened to the shots for a couple of hours before she "couldn’t stomach it anymore." The owners are eligible for up to $3,000 Canadian per ostrich in compensation. It is not clear how this amount was determined.

Now, what does a bird cull have to do with sick day regulations? On the surface, nothing. But both events highlight the complexities of public health policy and the trade-offs involved. In the case of the ostriches, the CFIA prioritized preventing a potential viral mutation over the well-being of the animals and the livelihoods of the farmers. In the case of sick day regulations, the government is attempting to balance the needs of employees, employers, and healthcare providers.

It’s tempting to view each event in isolation. But I see a pattern: a tendency to favor incremental changes and reactive measures over bold, systemic solutions. The sick note rules are a prime example. They address a symptom (administrative burden) without tackling the underlying problem (access to healthcare, workplace culture).

The Band-Aid Will Likely Fall Off

B.C.'s new sick day rules are a well-intentioned but ultimately inadequate response to a complex problem. They may provide some marginal relief to doctors and employees, but they fail to address the fundamental issues driving healthcare strain. And, like the ostrich cull, they reveal a preference for cautious, piecemeal solutions over the kind of systemic change that's truly needed.