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.
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.
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).
‘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.“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.”
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.”
The WHO did not respond to a request for comment on sovereignty issues and on claims that Article 55 is not being respected.
“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.
Multiple Changes
The pandemic agreement and IHR amendments have gone through important changes since they were first introduced.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.
Public Scrutiny
Support for and opposition to the WHO pandemic agreement appear split along the same lines drawn in relation to COVID-19 policies.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. 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.”
‘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.”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.
