The provincial government, along with some Alberta agriculture and food industry leaders, are voicing their concerns about a federal bill aimed at bolstering pandemic protections over what they say is government overreach.
But an associate professor of policy studies at Mount Royal University, Lori Williams, said such characterizations are not entirely accurate and reflect conspiracy theories.
Bill C-293, “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness”, passed a third reading in the House of Commons earlier this year, but it has not yet been passed by the Senate.
The province calls the bill “highly intrusive” and said it unfairly singles out the agriculture and food industry while encroaching on provincial jurisdiction.
Williams said the province’s concerns about jurisdictional overreach are vague, and in some cases the federal government does actually have a legitimate say in how provinces oversee health and agriculture.
“To suggest that somehow the federal government is doing something new and outside of its jurisdiction is not entirely accurate,” Williams said.
The Alberta government also appeared to take issue with the wording in the proposed legislation.
Portions of the bill state the federal government would plan to “promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins” and “phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species.”
The province said in a news release the bill would allow the Canadian government to “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” and opens the door “for the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.”
Williams said some of these concerns “reflect some sort of conspiracy theory,” although there is room to improve on the language contained in the bill, she said.
“Drawing the line on what is or isn’t federal jurisdiction two years after legislation has been introduced, long after it’s passed the House of Commons, just raises questions about why are these concerns being raised now?” she said.
According to Williams, it appears the province’s concerns aren’t based on fact, science or law.
“Are they simply reflecting some of the more bizarre interpretations of what could be implied by the language of the legislation without a whole lot of foundation in terms of what’s actually in the act itself?” she said.
Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdson called on the federal government to reconsider the bill in its current form.
“Bill C-293… goes so far as to pick winners and losers within the agriculture sector, with potentially wide-reaching, catastrophically damaging regulations and restriction of commercial freedoms for agricultural producers and processors,” Sigurdson said.
Minister of Health Adriana LaGrange said the bill would intrude upon the province’s jurisdiction to manage its health-care system in public health emergencies.
“Local governing bodies are in the best position to create emergency preparedness plans that suit the unique needs of their province and territory,” she said.
Provincial officials called for changes to the bill, worried it would give the government of Canada power to shut down agriculture and livestock facilities without clear criteria.
Leaders from Alberta’s chicken, beef and pork production sector also said they support the overall aim of the bill to increase pandemic preparedness, but were concerned about its wording, and asked the federal government to make amendments to it so that it doesn’t target the meat industry.
‘Open to amendments’
MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who represents the riding of Beaches—East York in Toronto and sponsored the bill, told CBC News the focus of the bill would require the federal government to come up with a plan to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic.
“It’s pretty much as simple as that,” he said. “I’m open to amendments, but the idea is to manage and reduce risks.”
Erskine-Smith said opponents of the bill assume the federal government would attempt to wipe out meat production in Canada, which he dismissed.
“It’s not about eliminating that agriculture, that would be ridiculous,” he said. “Just as global travel represents a pandemic risk, we’re not going to eliminate global travel.”
He said his aim with that part of the bill was to hone in on phasing out activities that create disproportionate and unreasonable risk, such as mink farming, not to target major industries such as beef and poultry.
Asked what he would say in response to Alberta farmers who are concerned about the wording of the bill, Erskine-Smith said “you are not causing disproportionate risk, so you shouldn’t worry at all about that particular section.”
He added “when it comes to regulating activities, Canada already has really strong rules in place… This is not opposition to the industry, this is about making sure we manage and reduce risks.”
As for the regulation of commercial activities outlined in the bill, Erskine-Smith said his intention was to make certain rules around bio-security in the agriculture sector mandatory, rather than voluntary.
“If ‘assess’ is the right language rather than ‘regulate,’ have at it,” he said. “The Senate has the power to make these changes and to make sure they fine-tune the language of the bill to get it right. That makes perfect sense to me.”