A Liberal member of Parliament says he’s baffled by the Alberta United Conservative government’s response to his private member’s bill about pandemic preparedness.
The bill from Toronto MP Nate Erskine-Smith, called “an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is currently before the Senate.
The proposed legislation would require the federal health minister to create a pandemic preparedness and prevention plan in co-ordination with federal and provincial public health, manufacturing, agriculture and environmental officials.
The plan, the bill says, must include a number of strategies for reducing and responding to the risk of disease spread, ranging from boosting health-care capacity and training additional health workers to managing risk in commercial meat processing operations.
Alberta Agriculture Minister RJ Sigurdson, as well as representatives from Alberta’s pork, beef, and chicken producer associations, told a press conference last week that the bill would devastate the province’s agriculture sector and threaten food security worldwide.
“The federal government would have the discretionary power to allow public health officials to shut down facilities, like livestock operations and meat processing plants, without clear objective criteria,” Sigurdson said Thursday.
“This would disrupt meat supply chains and other agricultural operations linked to them, like feed production, which would place our role as a major food supplier at risk, threatening overall global food security.”
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
His comments stem from a section of the bill that says any pandemic preparedness plan must include measures developed by federal health and agriculture ministers, as well as provincial governments, to manage disease spread in the agriculture sector.
Those measures must aim to regulate commercial agriculture activities that contribute to pandemic risk, as well as measures to “phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species.”
Erskine-Smith said Sigurdson’s comments were “astounding.”
“It’s honestly baffling,” he said in an interview. “This is next level.”
Erskine-Smith said the bill simply requires the development of a plan, and what the plan includes and what measures and strategies would be put in place remains to be seen.
“The bill does not grant any new governmental authorities at all,” he said, referencing Sigurdson’s claim that public health officials would be given unilateral power to shut down meat processing plants.
“It’s not about eliminating agriculture. It’s about making sure we manage and reduce risks.”
Erskine-Smith also took issue with a comment made by Sandra Spruit, a board member of Alberta Pork.
Spruit said at the press conference that the bill asserts “the promotion of plant-based alternative protein is the only acceptable choice to prevent a pandemic.”
Part of bill says “production of alternative proteins” is an example of commercial agriculture that should be promoted to reduce the risk of disease spread.
Erskine-Smith said that clause does not imply that the production of alternative protein is the only viable choice to reduce the spread of disease. It’s simply a measure that could be taken to promote the industry, he said.
“As you look at growing demand for animal protein and for protein around the world, Canada is going contribute to meeting that demand through bio-secure meat and through alternative proteins. And both of those avenues are going to be incredibly beneficial to our economy,” he said.
“I would have thought we would want to embrace innovation and make sure that there are more choices for consumers.”
Sigurdson said in an interview Friday that the language in the bill is ambiguous, specifically regarding the clause that states a pandemic preparedness plan would need to include measures to “phase out” higher-risk commercial agriculture activities.
“That’s very, very dangerous language when it comes to legislation,” said Sigurdson. “That sends a really clear message in my mind of phasing out any livestock production.”
When asked what changes he’d like to see in the bill to make the language less ambiguous, he said the agriculture section should be removed entirely.
“I don’t believe the federal government should be able to control commercial activities that relate to livestock in individual provinces,” he said. “I think it’s a gross overstep on their part.”
Sigurdson said Alberta already has world-class safety and quality standards when it comes to commercial meat processing, so he doesn’t see how a preparedness plan would better manage the risk of disease spread.
Erskine-Smith said the point of the bill is to make sure those standards remain in place in every province.
“I’ve said all along, I’m open to changes and I’m open to changes in a collaborative way,” he said.
“I don’t know why we have to go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories instead of working together to get the language right.”
© 2024 The Canadian Press