WHO Pandemic Agreement Faces Scant Opposition in Canada, as UK Rejects Current Text

World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus looks on during a press conference on the World Health Organization's 75th anniversary in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 6, 2023. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

With a vote on the World Health Organization’s pandemic agreement and international health regulations expected to take place later this month, the UK government has pulled support and Republicans in the United States are pressing the White House to do the same.

In Canada, however, it’s going forward with limited opposition.

Ottawa has “actively participated in the development of the Pandemic Agreement, recognizing the necessity of a robust global health security architecture,” Health Canada spokesperson Anna Maddison told The Epoch Times.

When asked about the UK’s public stance, Health Canada said it would not comment on the ongoing negotiations, the latest round of which concluded unsuccessfully on May 10.

Media reported last week the UK would not sign the World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic agreement as currently drafted. Andrew Stephenson, minister of state in the Department of Health and Social Care, confirmed his government’s position in the House of Commons on May 14.

“I set out some of our negotiating red lines, and I am happy to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the current text is not acceptable to us,” Mr. Stephenson said. “Therefore, unless the current text is changed and refined, we will not be signing up to it.”

The minister said his country would only join if the WHO respects the UK’s national sovereignty. “Under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns,” he said.

An official Slovakian media outlet also reported May 10 that the country does not support the current version of the agreement, citing sovereignty concerns.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is set to begin its annual meeting in Geneva on May 27 and could vote on two legally binding documents: a pandemic agreement and the updated International Health Regulations (IHR).

After a final draft of the pandemic agreement could not be secured on May 10, the WHO said member states will keep negotiating to “further refine the draft” ahead of the meeting. WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus encouraged countries to forge ahead to produce “a generational agreement to protect the world from a repeat of the horrors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

‘Outside the Scope’

Critics of the global pandemic accord say adoption of the draft IHR at the end of the month would be unlawful, since article 55(2) of the IHR says the proposed amendments must be presented to all states four months ahead of the WHA. Meanwhile, an updated draft was discussed in late April and a meeting will be held May 16–17 to agree on proposed text that would be voted on.

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis, in a May 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Holland, said that given the requirement of the four-month period, Canadian delegates would be “acting outside the scope of their authority to even consider any of the tabled IHR amendments at the WHA.”

“This is an extremely serious matter of national concern because there are over 300 proposals for amendments made by various member states, some of which would substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers,” wrote Ms. Lewis, who has a Ph.D. in law.

“When combined with the legal prerogative of the new treaty or accord, Canadian healthcare sovereignty would essentially yield to the WHO during a global public health emergency.”

The MP says this increase in power is concerning given the “failure of the WHO’s response on a global level” to the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the “basic civil liberties” that were suspended in Canada “broadly and at length.”

While Ms. Lewis has been one of the few vocal political voices against adopting the WHO pandemic instruments in Canada, all of the 49 U.S. Republican senators have urged the Biden administration to withdraw support for the IHR amendments and to pull out of the pandemic agreement negotiations. Their May 1 letter states that failure to do so will lead them to consider the agreement a treaty, which would require two-thirds of the Senate for adoption.

The letter also says some of the over 300 proposals for amendments would “substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.”

A December 2023 White House statement says the United States seeks to “strengthen the global health security architecture,” including the WHO, and “engage in ongoing negotiations to amend the IHR and develop a Pandemic Accord.”

The WHO did not respond to a request for comment on sovereignty issues and on claims that Article 55 is not being respected.

In remarks delivered in January in the context of the WHO’s pandemic instruments processes, Mr. Ghebreyesus said the respective working groups “are operating amid a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories.”

“There are those who claim that the pandemic agreement and IHR will cede sovereignty to WHO and give the WHO Secretariat the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries,” he said. “These claims are completely false. You know that the agreement will give WHO no such powers, because you are writing it.”

The agreement’s latest draft has a section saying that nothing within the text should be interpreted as granting the WHO authority to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns.

Asked to comment on Canada’s position, Health Minister Holland’s office said it did not have anything to add to the statement provided by Health Canada media relations.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have said that only Parliament should have the power to legislate on matters related to Canada.

“We will review the recommendations further once they have been decided and we will consult with Canadians to hear their concerns, however we will not support anything that infringes on Canada’s sovereignty,” said MP Stephen Ellis, his party’s health critic, in a statement to The Epoch Times.

At the provincial level, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pointed out that provinces and territories are responsible for managing health care as per the Constitution.

“The federal government cannot delegate Alberta’s authority over its health system away and Alberta is not required to fulfill the federal government’s international obligations,” Ms. Smith said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

The premier added that while Alberta collaborates with all levels of government to address public health events and emergencies and can take into consideration recommendations stemming from these collaborations, “final decisions on any guidelines and regulation implementation are made by the province.”

Multiple Changes

The pandemic agreement and IHR amendments have gone through important changes since they were first introduced.

British advocacy group UsForThem said in a May 7 briefing prepared by lawyers that the recent iterations of the documents mark a “significant improvement on the egregious overreach of the previous circulated draft” but that “significant concerns remain.” The group said a proposal in the IHR to make WHO recommendations binding has been dropped.

Some of the language has been smoothed over, and plans to tackle so-called “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” are not being explicitly evoked. A full article was devoted to the topic in the Feb. 1, 2023, “Zero draft“ of the pandemic agreement.

The latest draft, dated April 22, 2024, now says, “Parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population.” It also tells signatories to take action to “conduct research to inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.”

As currently written, the pandemic agreement says in its third premise that signatories recognize the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Other language related to state sovereignty includes an article precluding signatories from making declarations or statements that would “exclude or ... modify the legal effect of the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement in their application to that State.”

Another draft article says a signatory must wait two years from the date on which it entered the agreement before being allowed to drop out.

The current draft pandemic agreement also contains multiple articles seeking to redistribute wealth, technology, and vaccines. The words “equity” and “equitable” appear 6 and 16 times respectively in the document.

An article on “access and benefit-sharing” says that during a pandemic, the WHO seeks to obtain “real-time access” to 20 percent of the production of what it calls “safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related health products.”

Public Scrutiny

Support for and opposition to the WHO pandemic agreement appear split along the same lines drawn in relation to COVID-19 policies.

In a March editorial, medical journal The Lancet called the agreement “shameful and unjust” for not being equitable and forceful enough. “Much of the language is greatly weakened from the initial ambition, filled with platitudes, caveats, and the term ‘where appropriate,’” it says.

The editorial says the WHO getting “only” 20 percent of products like vaccines is unjust. “The other 80%—whether vaccines, treatments, or diagnostics—would be prey to the international scramble seen in COVID-19 that saw vital health technologies sold to the highest bidder.”

The Lancet also says “the governance and accountability mechanisms of the treaty are being further undermined.”

“There is little in the way of clear enforceable obligations to prevent zoonotic disease outbreaks, implement One Health principles, strengthen health systems, or counter disinformation,” it says. It blames a “handful of powerful countries” for “sabotaging” the agreement.

On the other side of the spectrum, writers for the Brownstone Institute—which was established during the pandemic and has systematically criticized public health measures such as mandates—say the WHO instruments go too far.

Dr. David Bell and attorney Thi Thuy Van Dinh, global health and U.N. specialists who have scrutinized the iterations of the pandemic agreement and the IHR amendments, are concerned by the speed at which they could be adopted.

Dr. Bell told The Epoch Times the documents are “clearly unready, based on major assumptions regarding outbreak risk that are shown to be flawed, and without competent costing of the requirements being voted on, and the inevitable collateral harms.”

Ms. Dinh said the premise that urgency is required to prepare for future “more harmful and repetitive pandemics are exaggerated and unfounded.”

According to Ms. Dinh, the current International Health Regulations from 2005, which are based on the voluntary applications of WHO recommendations, are “fully applicable” to deal with pandemics.

“It would be more sensible to maintain it, and carefully take time and think through what might be amended, in full respect of the rule of law,” she told The Epoch Times.

“Establishing further bureaucratic pandemic institutions and mechanisms to divert public money from other health issues would be reckless.”

Dr. Bell and Ms. Dinh say the new accord will not improve pandemic management and suggest there are other underlying purposes. “Without a clear public health driver, it must be assumed that there are other drivers, perhaps reflected in the large commercial conflicts of interest that now influence much of WHO’s work,” Dr. Bell said.

‘Consulted Widely’

While Health Canada has not stated its position on the current negotiations, it says the government is taking part “on behalf of people in Canada” and that it has “consulted widely to help ensure that the Pandemic Agreement reflects Canadian priorities, objectives and values.”

Health Canada spokesperson Anna Maddison referred to a two-day forum held by the government in March 2023 to gather input. It involved 94 in-person participants in Ottawa and another 70 participants online, representing NGOs, academia, health services, the private sector, and provinces

A summary of the input published in August 2023 does not detail any concerns having been raised about protecting national autonomy.

Input gathered from the participants said national sovereignty needs to be balanced with “international cooperation and solidarity.”

“While countries have the right to make decisions that protect their citizens, it is essential to recognize that pandemics transcend borders and require global collaboration to effectively address them,” the participants said.