REASONS NOT TO PASS C-293

For a point form list showing 14 items, see https://sites.google.com/d/1qrEaQ4I7-YOJrRolQ5TYwrmW78Cn0NHm/p/1jsq4E4gGvaubkBucssL2j541hIENYnyf/edit 

Copy and paste into a document for printing:

REASONS NOT TO PASS BILL C-293…

Canada’s Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill has the potential to infringe on civil liberties, violate individuals' health privacy, grant broad powers to the Minister of Health, and much more. (https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/bill/C-293/third-reading)

Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, which has passed its first reading before the Senate, aims to establish robust measures to mitigate future pandemics. However, a closer look reveals several concerns related to government overreach, health privacy, possible violations of civil liberties, and unclear priorities. As well, it becomes clear that crucial terms are not defined. Which definition of pandemic is being understood? Does an illness need to present "with enormous
numbers of deaths and illness” or is that no longer a requirement for the understanding of that term? Likewise, terms like collaboration, vaccine, One Health, transparency, accountability (by whom, how, when?) are all unspecified. Given the utter lack of transparency and accountability re: government actions following the appearance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, much more clarification is needed as to how, in the future, government and government officials are to be held accountable. This is missing in the current version of Bill C-293.

One of the primary issues is the bill’s establishment and interlinking of surveillance systems for infectious diseases, both domestically and internationally. The extensive data collection proposed—especially with international linkages involving organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)—raises significant privacy concerns. This could lead to widespread monitoring of citizens’ health data, potentially without their explicit consent.

The legislation also mandates collaboration between the federal government, provincial governments, and Indigenous communities to collect and share health data. This requirement may create data privacy, security, and misuse concerns. It also does not define the scope of such collaboration. If some jurisdictions are forced to implement what is mandated at a federal level, one cannot speak of actual “collaboration.” As well, there is no recognition that in Canada, health care falls within provincial jurisdiction, not federal. As such, a federal bill in which authority is pulled away from provinces and territories, is a violation of our constitutional division of powers.

Another troubling aspect is the bill's broad discretion granted to the Minister of Health and other relevant officials. They are empowered to set pandemic preparedness standards and make far-reaching decisions about public health responses, surveillance, and commercial regulations. The absence of thorough oversight or parliamentary approval for such decisions raises concerns about transparency and accountability, potentially allowing political interests to take precedence over public welfare.

Furthermore, the bill compels the Minister of Health and other officials to "leverage international expertise" by adopting internationally developed pandemic prevention metrics. This could result in Canada aligning with global standards that don’t necessarily reflect its domestic needs, limiting the country’s ability to make independent public health decisions. Additionally, as more information has been revealed about decisions made by international agencies, it has become clear that they have been greatly compromised by industry forces. Global standards were not evidence-backed. There is no reference as to how which global standards are to be agreed upon.

In terms of economic impact, the bill targets commercial activities that "disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk," such as industrial animal agriculture. However, the lack of clarity around what constitutes "disproportionate" could lead to arbitrary decisions, harming industries without solid scientific evidence. This vagueness could spark significant economic disruptions and legal disputes over the scope of such regulations.

The bill’s emphasis on the One Health approach—integrating human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health—may also be problematic. While holistic health is important, this broad approach could lead to sweeping environmental regulations under the guise of pandemic prevention, potentially affecting sectors like farming, forestry, and urban development without clear justifications related to pandemics.

The bill allocates substantial resources to global health equity initiatives, raising concerns that domestic resources could be diverted to international efforts. While there is reference to the need to incorporate lessons learned from previous waves of respiratory illness, there is no indication of when, where and how which lessons learned should be incorporated by whom. There is no recognition in the Bill of the work of the National Citizens Inquiry which heard from over 300 Canadians over 27 days and compiled extensive recommendations covering all aspects of society. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/ 

Lastly, other than recommend the use of masks, PPE and vaccines, the Bill makes no mention of true illness preventative measures — while tangential topics like climate change, agricultural practices and land use are mentioned, there is no reference to building up the health of Canadians prior to the arrival of any potential infections through proper nutrition, sanitation, sufficient sleep, air quality, etc. There are no references to the determinants of health, nor to factors that strengthen the body’s natural immunity.

In summary, while Bill C-293 claims to be intended to enhance pandemic preparedness, its broad language, expanded surveillance powers, and potential for economic disruption pose significant risks. The bill’s lack of transparency and vague definitions could lead to actions that undermine civil liberties, disrupt key industries, and prioritize global interests over Canada's own. And its lack of references to the largest documented body of Covid-19 “lessons learned” must lead one to conclude that this bill falls far short of meeting its stated objectives.