Political Issues Watch - CANADA

Welcome to the Political Issue Watch platform for Canadian issues.

Featured Issue: WHO - 05/2024

“Proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the delegation of powers to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the event of a global or national pandemic.”

What it implies: In May 2024, the 77th World Health Assembly will take place. This assembly will adopt, after lengthy negotiations, modifications to significant documents governing global health policies. Canada, as a member state of the WHO, will be affected by these changes and will need to adapt its own legislation and public health practices to accommodate the anticipated changes.

Due to agreements contracted by Canada, some of these documents will have the force of law. They prove to be more binding than previous ones and involve the transfer of decision-making powers held by Canadian authorities to the World Health Organization (WHO). This is part of the efforts undertaken by WHO to develop and amend international regulatory instruments related to public health.

Our concerns: With this initiative, Canada delegates part of its legislative and regulatory power to an international entity. Indeed, by incorporating the proposed amendments to the IHR and the pandemic agreement, Canada renounces holding full power regarding its management of public health issues. This undermines the national sovereignty of Canada and could limit the ability of the Canadian government to respond independently and according to its own prerogatives to a potential health crisis. Moreover, the decisions made by the WHO are not subject to review by Canadian citizens and do not have the democratic legitimacy of laws and regulations adopted in Canada by the House of Commons.

We believe in the importance of civic engagement and public debate concerning regulations and policies affecting the health of Canadians. These amendments may limit the ability of Canadian citizens to express their views on decisions executed by their government in times of crisis or to support/reject them during federal elections.

A tool for the citizen: Here, you can follow the calendar of key meetings, take note of the entities involved in the file, and consult important documents associated with its evolution. You will also find tools to make your voice heard!

Send your concerns to your representative through this letter:


The Issue

The following two documents are at the end of their drafting process, and their adoption by the member countries of the WHO is scheduled for May 2024. The International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR) and the new International Agreement on the Prevention, Preparedness, and Response to Pandemics (Pandemic Agreement) are part of the agreements that frame the response to public health emergencies at the international level. Their objectives are to facilitate and harmonize the response of WHO member states to various health threats and to facilitate cooperation in the development of their national public health policies.

The writing and updating of these agreements involve extensive negotiations and consultations with member states by WHO administrators and experts. These efforts are based on the need to adopt a coordinated international approach to facing certain public health threats, emphasizing the necessity of transparency, equity, and shared responsibility.

However, some of the recently proposed amendments to these documents go against this shared responsibility and encroach on the competencies of the member states and may constrain their actions.

IHR: A Regulation Soon Binding for Canada

The IHR is an international agreement overseen by the World Health Assembly designed to prevent and respond to international health emergencies. It aims to:

  1. prevent the international spread of diseases,

  2. protect countries against international health emergencies, and

  3. control and offer a public response to these risks, while avoiding unnecessary disruptions to international traffic and trade. Since its adoption, it has played a key role in managing global health crises, such as the Zika outbreaks in 2016, the Ebola outbreak in 2014, and the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, some modifications to the IHR are envisioned.

From WHO:

The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 State Parties, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR, in their version adopted in 2005, have been amended twice – in 2014 and 2022 (the most-recent amendments will come into force in May 2024). The newest proposed amendments come in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. source

Pandemic Agreement: An Additional Agreement, with More Reach

The pandemic agreement, an agreement/treaty under preparation. Compared to the IHR, this agreement establishes more robust mechanisms for surveillance, information sharing, and resource distribution during a pandemic. In accordance with Canada’s obligations to WHO, the new provisions of this treaty will be adopted by the Canadian government and applied in our country.

From WHO:

Member States of the World Health Organization have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The World Health Assembly mandated the INB to submit its final outcome to the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in May 2024. source

The Involved Parties

The WGIHR

The Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) is responsible for writing and updating the IHR. This group, which reports to the WHO Executive Board, identifies and gathers possible amendments to the IHR from member states.

The INB

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was created following the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Assembly. Its goal is to develop, negotiate, and establish a new agreement, the pandemic agreement. It notably conducts consultations and public hearings in the WHO member states.

The Canadian Government

Due to its international commitments, the IHR is legally binding for Canada. Under this agreement, Canada must strengthen its surveillance and intervention capacities and report certain public health events to WHO. The IHR is implemented in the country through the Public Health Agency of Canada.

In relation to the pandemic agreement, Canada declares its strong support for the new WHO initiative. It coordinates consultation efforts at the provincial and territorial levels and has mandated the Office of International Affairs to define Canada’s positions concerning the new treaty.

The State of the Debate

In Canada and elsewhere in the world, the proposed amendments to the IHR and the new treaty have sparked public debates about their relevance and the risks they pose to the sovereignty of the member states of WHO.

In Canada

Leslyn Lewis, MP for Haldimand-Norfolk in Ontario, leads the opposition to the proposed reforms concerning the management of global health crises. She has frequently spoken in the media and in parliament to highlight the risks associated with the modifications to the IHR and the pandemic agreement. She argues that this treaty could limit individual freedoms and grant excessive power to WHO.

Leslyne Lewis’s site:

This position, however, is criticized by some observers, who contest the MP’s interpretation of the proposed amendments. Nevertheless, these critics primarily rely on amalgams and do not directly or in-depth address the concerns raised by Ms. Lewis.

Counter-article:

  • Leslyn Lewis claims that the WHO’s pandemic pact is a step towards a “world government”. Link: www-cbc-ca

Elsewhere in the World

In the United Kingdom, heated debates have taken place in the British Parliament regarding WHO initiatives. Critics of these initiatives advance that the new legally binding obligations could limit the autonomy of public health policies of countries. Moreover, they denounce the influence of major donors on WHO and decisions made by unelected officials, questioning democratic accountability. These debates highlight the challenge of maintaining national sovereignty while cooperating internationally to manage pandemics.

Want to take action?

If you feel called upon by this issue, you are encouraged to get involved and make your voice heard by your representative, through a letter, by showing your support, or by signing a petition.

Send your concerns to your representative through this letter:


Please note that letters intended for our Members of Parliament (MPs) should be sent using the email provided in the form. Once received, it is your responsibility to forward these letters to the respective MP. Additionally, please check your junk email folder regularly, as our domain has not been validated yet. Thank you.

Letters to MPs

A letter has been addressed to our representatives to emphasize the importance of conducting detailed analyses with democratic support, in the context of the legal modifications proposed by WHO and its member states. You too can send a similar letter to your MP!

Sent letters:

Total forms received: 45

Constituencies


New Brunswick (30)

Total forms received for New Brunswick: 30

Acadie—Bathurst (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Madawaska—Restigouche (24)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Tobique—Mactaquac (5)
  • ✅ Reply from the MP.
  • ✅ Clear position affirmed.
      • ✅ Favorable to the cause.


Quebec (15)

Total forms received for Quebec: 15

Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Abitibi—Témiscamingue (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Ahuntsic-Cartierville (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Berthier—Maskinongé (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Joliette (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
La Prairie (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Laurentides—Labelle (2)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Québec (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Saint-Maurice—Champlain (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.
Sherbrooke (1)
  • ❌ Reply from the MP.
  • [?] Clear position affirmed.
      • [?] Favorable to the cause.