HANNAFORD: How much control do Canadians really want to give the UN?

The World Health Organization is in the late stages of negotiating a multilateral treaty to govern the actions of governments, should there be another pandemic. In this plan to "...strengthen and coordinate national and international efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics," the Government of Canada has been all in from the start in 2021. And not for the first time. Canada has signed on to dozens of international agreements.But those who track the internet know that some people say that when Canada signs on to these treaties, it means a shocking loss of sovereignty. Is it? There are all kinds of good reasons why (in this case) nations should cooperate to mitigate a future pandemic. Which, of course, on the basis of past experience is a certainty.And if sovereignty is compromised, should we worry about it?The answer to the first sovereignty question is that in principle, no international treaty supersedes Canada's constitution. However, it's rather like the basset-hound breeder who said the trick was to find out what the dog wants to do, tell it do it, it does it and you're both happy. Staying with the COVID example, in its COVID-19 response, the Government of Canada loved having the World Health Organization tell it to do what it wanted to do anyway — increase control. Where the dog analogy breaks down is that a lot of Canadians ended up anything but happy when the UN recommended lockdowns, masking, vaccination using untried chemicals and the Trudeau Liberals rushed to do it. And all along of course, we were constantly reminded that Canada's Chief Medical Officer Dr. Theresa Tam had excellent connections with the World Health Organization, so we really could not be in better hands.So, should we worry if the Government of Canada, by effectively outsourcing decision-making to the World Health Organization through this treaty, is signing up to be told to do things it wants to do anyway but doesn't want to be accountable for?Judge for yourself. You can read the current iteration of the draft, here.First, much of what it says is open to interpretation. A phrase like 'equity shall be at the centre of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery,' can mean whatever you want it to mean. Interpretation could hardly be constrained by scientific rigidities. So what are we signing up for?And some of the text borders on dreamy mysticism. The WHO would have us commit to a “One Health approach,” meaning an 'integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.' (Article 1, sub-section d.) There's a nod in there to 'Indigenous knowledge systems,' for example.And so on. The eyes glaze over, but it does seem to diminish the priority of people. But more than that, it looks to me like a strategy to place basically everything under the purview of the technocrats. 'One health' certainly opens the door to the declaration of climate change emergencies as a matter of public health, which takes us all a long way from managing a pandemic, doesn't it? And peppered through the draft are less speculative anxieties.How about this proposed amendment to '... undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.' All in, indeed.Or this promise to follow directions at the double: "Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations ... shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties... State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures." Businesses, then. And you, you non-state actors. Shut up and obey.Here's a new word, 'infodemic.' The WHO defines it as "too much information, false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures." Here's Article 18 as well: "The Parties shall ... combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation... etc."This is nothing less than a war on free discussion, and these aren't the people whose past performance qualifies them to determine what is and is not misinformation. It's all part of the treaty though, so from their lips to Health Canada's ears, to restrictions upon people, as the Government of Canada smiles approvingly.The Trudeau Liberals will sign this with eagerness.And so it goes on. Read it. There is nothing secret and some people may even like it. Of course, some people would also like masks as a way of life, mandatory vaccination and the RCMP going door-to-door to check. But those who don't, need to pay attention. This is late-stage: In early December, the World Health Organization was getting down to its seventh round of negotiations, with a view to a final draft available for ratification in May. Indeed, they meet again next week.Here's the basset-hound problem very few people think about. Canada is very good at signing on to UN conventions. Within the past 30 years, successive governments of Canada have signed up (for example) for UN agreements on the Rights of the Child, Biological Diversity, Climate Change, including the Paris Agreement, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.But, agreements such as these are then used to pre-empt parliamentary discussion on major policy directions with the argument that 'we must do this or that, to meet our UN commitments.' It is, for example, to meet our commitments under the UN commitment on Biological Diversity that we are aiming to turn 30% of Canada's lands and waters into protected areas by 2030. 'Thirty by thirty' put a lot of land beyond development.Parental efforts to do their best for their children, run up against the childrens' rights convention. For example, what happens when a child not old considered mature enough to drive, asserts the 'right' to a sex-change? The UN is on the child's side. And Canada's eager judiciary was informed by UNDRIP years before it became law.This is dangerous. The only piece of good news is that Article 27 says "any time after two years from the date on which the WHO Pandemic Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the WHO Pandemic Agreement by giving written notification."As we don't have a government that understands why we shouldn't sign something like this, at least the door's open for a future government that understands why it should get out.

HANNAFORD: How much control do Canadians really want to give the UN?

Related Stories