The report, which studied Alberta’s response to COVID-19, recommends all decisions be made by cabinet instead of bureaucrats in future pandemics.
Preston Manning, founder of the Manning Centre, in a file photo dated Feb. 28, 2014. (Manning Centre c/o Jake Wright/CC BY 2.0)
A panel studying Alberta’s response to COVID-19 is calling for an overhaul in how the province reacts to future pandemics to ensure the premier and cabinet have the “ultimate authority” in responding to health emergencies.
The province has yet to decide if it will act on any of the more than 90 recommendations from the panel, which was led by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning.
The Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel report recommends implementing policies for future public health emergencies via the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA). It also touched on improving the province’s administrative and regulatory framework governing public emergency responses, striking a balance between protections from harm and protecting rights and freedoms, improving the health-care system, and increasing surge capacity.
“The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting global turmoil was unprecedented. Alberta, like the rest of the world, had to make decisions quickly and with limited, changing and even conflicting information,” Mr. Manning said in the report.
“It is my hope that by adopting these recommendations, the Government will be better equipped to cope with future emergencies and that the impacts on Albertans—their personal livelihoods, civil liberties, and mental health—can be mitigated to the greatest extent possible.”
The $2-million panel was created by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith back in January, with the aim of making recommendations on how the province could be better prepared for a future pandemic.
Ms. Smith, who had previously been critical of COVID lockdowns and vaccine mandates, said her caucus would “review and analyze the report and consider the panel’s recommendations as we prepare for future legislative sessions.”
Debate Merits of Declare State of Emergency
The panel recommends putting the AEMA, which currently leads responses to natural disasters, in charge of responding to future public health emergencies, and that all AEMA orders be subject to cabinet approval. It also urges the Alberta legislature to debate the merits of declaring a provincial-wide state of emergency.
The panel recommends the AEMA appoint a “senior science officer,” who would then be responsible for hiring and maintaining a series of experts to advise in the event of a public emergency.
It also calls for the province to mandate by legislation that preliminary, interim, and post-emergency impact assessments be conducted in response to any future public emergencies.
A Court of King’s Bench judge found in July that Alberta violated its Public Health Act when then-chief medical officer of health Deena Hinshaw deferred some of her public health COVID-19 decision-making authority to cabinet. In early November, Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery introduced a bill that would grant that authority to cabinet, as opposed to the chief medical officer of health.
On the health care side, the report calls for the strengthening of the province’s health-care system to respond to surges in demand, which would involve expanding the use of nurse practitioners, reducing barriers to health-care workers obtaining employment, incentivizing medical graduates to serve in the most needed areas, and expanding the use of virtual medicine.
In future pandemics, while Alberta Health Services would make recommendations related to health matters, all decisions would be made by the Alberta government through the AEMA.
‘Democratic’ Response
The report also noted there is a “growing debate” on whether democratic or authoritarian governments responded best to the COVID pandemic. It added there was a temptation for Western governments to “increasingly imitate the authoritarian model in their responses to emergencies,” with the executive branch of government dictating the pandemic response, issuing orders with minimal public consultation, handing out harsh penalties for violations, and using the police to enforce compliance.
The panel recommended creating a more “democratic” response and said the public assembly should have a more “meaningful role.” It said there should be more transparency about why regulations are put in place, regular feedback from the public and other experts should be commonplace, and there should be open and public inquiries after the emergencies to identify lessons to be learned.
According to the report, the public health restrictions adopted by Ottawa and the Alberta government imposed “severe limits” on the rights and freedoms of Albertans. It said vaccine passports limited the freedom of conscience and belief, “social distancing” rules and travel restrictions curtailed freedom of assembly and mobility rights, school closures limited the freedom of association, and lockdowns went against the rights “of every citizen to pursue the gaining of a livelihood.”
The Alberta Bill of Rights, Employment Standards Code, and Health Professions Act should also be modified to protect the rights and freedoms of all Albertans, with an emphasis on freedom of expression during public emergencies, the panel said. It also called for changes to the Employment Standards Code to provide for leaves of absence for non-compliant employees during a public health emergency, a reference to thousands of Albertans who were fired from their jobs for refusing to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
The panel also recommends the rewording of Alberta’s Education Act to strengthen the rights of students to access education. It said the government should be “expressly forbidden” from closing physical access to in-school education, even during a public health emergency, “except under the most exceptional circumstances, and with an express public commitment to the date of reopening.”
The report noted that during the pandemic, there was an insistence by all levels of government and the media that there was only “one acceptable narrative” explaining and justifying the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It said this meant other narratives were censored, and freedom of thought, belief, and expression were disregarded.
According to the report, government officials and the AEMA should be more open to considering and investigating “alternative” scientific narratives and hypotheses, even if it creates uncertainty as to which scientific narratives are more relevant in dealing with the emergency.
The report says that science should distinguish between “factual claims that are appropriately informed by scientific evidence and those that are inappropriately informed.” It also calls for evidence-informed decision-making to consider non-scientific evidence, as subjective experiences can be important for shaping policies.