Alberta government's concerns about federal pandemic bill reflect conspiracy theories, MRU prof says

Alberta is voicing concerns about a federal bill aimed at bolsteringpandemic protectionsover what the province says is government overreach.

But an associate professor of policy studies at Mount Royal University, Lori Williams, said such characterizationsare not entirely accurate and reflectconspiracy 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 theSenate.

The province calls the bill "highly intrusive"and said itunfairly singles out the agriculture and food industry while encroachingon provincial jurisdiction.

Williams said the province's concerns about jurisdictional overreach are vague, andin some cases the federal government does actuallyhave a legitimate sayin how provinces oversee health and agriculture.

"To suggest that somehow the federal government is doing something new and outside of its jurisdictionis not entirely accurate," Williams said.

The Alberta government also appeared to take issue withthe wording in the proposed legislation.

Portions ofthe bill statethe federal government would planto "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 wouldallow the Canadian government to "mandatethe 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 theseconcerns "reflect some sort of conspiracytheory," althoughthere is room to improve on the language contained inthe bill, she said.

"Drawing the lineon 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 morebizarre interpretations of what could be implied by the language of the legislation without a whole lot of foundation in terms ofwhat's actually inthe act itself?" she said.

Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdsoncalled 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," Sigurdsonsaid.

Minister of Health Adriana LaGrange said the bill wouldintrude 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 downagriculture and livestock facilitieswithout clear criteria.

Leaders from Alberta's chicken,beef and porkproduction sector also said they support the overall aim of the bill to increase pandemic preparedness, but were concerned about itswording, and askedthe federal government to make amendments toit so that it doesn't target the meatindustry.

'Open to amendments'

MPNathaniel Erskine-Smith, who represents the riding ofBeaches-East York in Toronto and sponsored the bill, told CBC News the focus of the bill wouldrequirethe federalgovernment to come up witha 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 outmeat 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 onphasing out activities that create disproportionate and unreasonable risk, such as mink farming, not to target majorindustries such as beef and poultry.

Asked what he would say in response to Albertafarmers 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 theregulation ofcommercial activities outlined in the bill, Erskine-Smith said his intention was to make certain rules around bio-securityin 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."