Thread by @canadaincrisis

Setting the record straight. As of July 18, 2025, Canada has not ratified the WHO Pandemic Agreement. This could if ever take years.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement adopted by consensus on May 20, 2025 at the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva is a 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 aimed at strengthening global cooperation to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics.

It builds on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing equity in access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments, as well as improved information sharing and surveillance.

The agreement explicitly reaffirms the sovereignty of member states, stating that countries retain the right to legislate and implement their own health policies in line with international law.

It does not grant the WHO authority to impose lockdowns, mandates or other measures on any country including Canada.

𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
The agreement was adopted by 124 WHO member states including Canada on May 20, 2025. Eleven countries abstained (e.g., Russia, Italy, Poland, Slovakia) and none voted against it.

The United States did not participate as it is in the process of withdrawing from the WHO.

𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞:
Adoption is not the same as signing or ratification. The agreement requires further negotiation on key annexes such as the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system which could take up to a year. It will then be open for signature and needs ratification by at least 60 countries to enter into force.

Each country including Canada handles ratification through its own domestic processes (e.g., parliamentary approval if needed).

𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭:
Separate from the agreement are amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) adopted in May 2024. These focus on broader health emergency detection and response including a new "pandemic emergency" definition as the highest alert level. They emphasize capacity-building and equity but do not override national sovereignty.

Canada has been compliant with the IHR since 2007 and views them as complementary to domestic laws.

Canada actively participated in negotiations and supports the agreement as a tool to enhance global health security without compromising its control over domestic decisions.

The Canadian government led by Prime Minister Mark Carney (as of mid-2025) emphasized alignment with national priorities like equity and whole-of-society approaches.

𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚'𝐬 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞:
Canada views the agreement as a way to build on COVID-19 lessons focusing on equity, misinformation countermeasures and inclusive surveillance (e.g., considering marginalized communities).

It conducted stakeholder engagements across sectors, including provinces, Indigenous groups and civil society to shape its input.

Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Global Affairs Canada led these efforts emphasizing no loss of sovereignty.

𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
Any obligations would align with existing laws; Canada remains in control of restrictions, vaccines, and responses.

For example, during COVID-19 federal roles were limited to borders and coordination while provinces handled most measures.

𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚:
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has led opposition, sponsoring petitions (e.g., one with thousands of signatures in 2023) claiming the agreement could lead to "global government" and sovereignty erosion.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
The query references "authority or law they want to impose on Canada" which aligns with widespread concerns about sovereignty loss. However, these are largely based on misinformation.

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝:
Forced Measures: No provisions for WHO-imposed lockdowns, vaccines, or travel bans; recommendations are advisory.

Sovereignty Loss: Explicitly preserved; the WHO cannot override national laws or deploy forces (e.g., no "UN troops" as some posts claim).

Global Government: Experts like those from the Geneva Graduate Institute call this a "conspiracy theory"; it's a cooperative framework, not supranational rule.

Misinformation Spread: The WHO has addressed false narratives, including from figures like Nigel Farage, noting they erode trust. In Canada, stakeholders suggested holding social media accountable for misinformation while respecting free speech.

𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬:
Proponents (e.g., WHO, Canadian Government): It's a "victory for public health" that addresses inequities seen in COVID-19, like vaccine access gaps.

Critics (e.g., Lewis, Some Academics): Argue it could indirectly pressure countries via peer reviews or funding ties, and lacks strong enforcement for equity.

Groups like Doctors Without Borders have criticized Canada's positions for prioritizing intellectual property over access in negotiations.

Stakeholder Views: Canadian engagements highlighted needs for Indigenous inclusion, countering misinformation, and equity for vulnerable groups (e.g., visible minorities more exposed in essential jobs).

In summary, the Pandemic Agreement is not an "imposed law" on Canada but a voluntary framework for better global readiness. While concerns about indirect influences exist, substantiated evidence shows no direct threat to sovereignty. For the latest, check official sources like WHO or Global Affairs Canada, as negotiations continue.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
The WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May 2025, is described as a legally binding international instrument under the WHO Constitution.

This means participating countries (including Canada, upon ratification) commit to obligations such as sharing information on pathogens, ensuring equitable access to medical resources (e.g., allocating up to 20% of vaccines for global distribution) and enhancing preparedness through coordinated surveillance and capacity-building.

It's binding only on states that choose to ratify it, and it emphasizes sovereignty meaning the WHO cannot impose measures like lockdowns or override national laws.

For Canada, ratification would integrate these commitments into its international obligations, but implementation remains under domestic control, aligning with existing laws and federal-provincial divisions.

If breached, consequences might involve diplomatic negotiations or reports to the WHO rather than direct penalties.

Overall, "legally binding" here promotes global cooperation without creating a supranational authority.

As of July 18, 2025, Canada has not ratified the WHO Pandemic Agreement. The agreement was adopted by consensus at the 78th World Health Assembly on May 20, 2025, but adoption is distinct from the processes of signature and ratification.

It is not yet open for either, as an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) was established to finalize negotiations on a key annex related to the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system.

The IGWG held its first organizational meeting on July 9-10, 2025, with the annex expected to be submitted for consideration at the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026 (or possibly later).

Only after the annex's adoption will the full agreement be opened for signature and subsequent ratification by member states, requiring at least 60 ratifications to enter into force.

No countries, including Canada have ratified it at this stage as the process is ongoing.
Canada has expressed support for the agreement and participated in its development but formal ratification would involve domestic procedures such as parliamentary review, once it's available.

𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫:
This article presents an interpretation of global events, institutions and policies. It is intended to provoke thought, skepticism and deeper inquiry. While the content draws from publicly available sources, official documents and statements made by involved parties, the analysis reflects a critical viewpoint and should not be taken as established fact. Readers are encouraged to verify all claims independently, consult multiple perspectives and come to their own conclusions.

@threadreaderapp unroll