Connect with us

Health

Sovereignty at Stake: Why Parliament Must Review Treaties Before They’re Signed

Published

12 minute read

For years I have been closely following the activities of the World Health Organization and Canada’s involvement with the Global Pandemic Treaty.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This treaty, once ratified, will directly influence the public health decisions and responses of all signatory countries.

I have raised red flags about its implications on Canada’s health sovereignty and the federal government’s willingness to enter a legally binding treaty of this weight without any input from Parliament.

In May 2025, after many rounds of negotiations, the World Health Assembly adopted the main text of the treaty. However, it has not yet been signed or ratified – meaning Canada has not yet agreed to be legally bound by the treaty.

We are now in a critical window of opportunity to ask tough questions and debate the treaty before it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and binds our nation.

What You Can Do

We need your help to get this treaty before Parliament so that your elected Member of Parliament can ask questions and hold the government accountable on Canada’s behalf.

Here’s what you can do:

  1. Sign this petition that calls on the Prime Minister to allow Parliament the opportunity to review and debate the pandemic treaty before it is signed and ratified.
  1. Write to your Member of Parliament to ask that they publicly support that same call for parliamentary review.
  1. Share this post and the petition to drum up the momentum and pressure in Ottawa.

Why This Matters

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed the WHO’s failures at a global level;. and, nationally, under the expansive claim of the “health and safety of Canadians,” basic civil liberties were suspended broadly and at length. Canadians are rightly concerned that a legally binding agreement could cede too much authority to an unelected and unreliable international organization the next time a pandemic is declared. Meanwhile, five years after COVID-19, the government has yet to show it is serious about improving its pandemic response, with no public inquiry into its actions and decisions during the crisis.

The Background Story of the Global Pandemic Treaty

In December 2021, while the world was still in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO proposed a Pandemic Treaty, known as the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Agreement. This would be a legally binding framework that, would seek to prevent and manage future pandemics. Once in force, the treaty would “guide” each country’s response through recommendations to adopt specific measures, such as those related to vaccines, surveillance, data sharing, and travel.

In parallel, the WHO moved to amend the International Health Regulations (IHRs) – the existing legal framework that governs its authority. Over 300 amendments were proposed and later adopted, including a new category called “pandemic emergency” – giving the WHO broader authority to trigger a global response.

Both the treaty and the IHR amendments sparked scrutiny worldwide over the expanded legal powers they could grant the WHO. Many expressed great concern about the level of powers that the WHO would have over national and provincial decision-making during a global public health emergency – concerns that continue with the final treaty text.

Here at home, I launched petitions to call attention to the treaty and its implications – particularly the fact that Parliament had neither debated nor voted on Canada’s participation in a legally binding treaty. I repeatedly urged the government to reject certain amendments or opt out entirely. I wrote to the Minister of Health multiple times to demand answers and transparency.

On May 20, 2025, after three years of negotiations, the World Health Assembly adopted the treaty by consensus. (Notably, the United States did not participate in the negotiations and is not bound by the treaty.)

One key component of the WHO Pandemic Treaty — an annex on sharing pathogens and vaccines — is still being negotiated. Once that section is finished, countries, including Canada, can sign and ratify the agreement.

Canada is currently reviewing domestic laws to make sure they align with the newly adopted IHRs, and plans to table the amended regulations in Parliament this year. The Pandemic Treaty, which is distinct yet negotiated in parallel, will likely be tabled in Parliament only after the annex is complete. Together, the two pieces will form the core of the WHO’s new pandemic response framework.

How You Helped Shape the Final WHO Pandemic Agreement

Early drafts of the WHO Pandemic Agreement included broad provisions on global surveillance, misinformation control, and travel or vaccine measures that raised serious concerns about transparency and national sovereignty.

It was the pushback from concerned and informed citizens like you that forced these changes. Your sustained engagement led negotiators to scale back or remove the most contentious sections.

By the time the final text was adopted in May 2025:

  • References to “misinformation” and “infodemic management” were removed entirely, ensuring the WHO has no authority over domestic speech or information controls.
  • Clauses that could have enabled travel bans, vaccine mandates, or lockdown coordination were replaced with explicit guarantees of national sovereignty.
  • Provisions on surveillance and data sharing were narrowed to voluntary cooperation, with safeguards for privacy and domestic law.

This outcome is a direct result of public vigilance and civil-society advocacy, proving that when citizens engage, international negotiations become more accountable, transparent, and respectful of national democracy.

We Must Insist on Parliamentary Oversight

Many people are unaware that Parliament is not required to debate or approve international treaties before ratification. MPs may request debate, but it is not guaranteed. Canada’s treaty ratification process is governed by policy, rather than law, and remains fully controlled by government (through Cabinet), which can waive or bypass when necessary.

In Canada today, the government — not Parliament — has the final say on signing and ratifying international treaties.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is supposed to table new treaties in the House of Commons for 21 sitting days so MPs can see them, but this review is only a formality. Parliament can debate the issue or pass laws to make the treaty work inside Canada, but it never votes to approve or reject the treaty itself.

If the government wants to move quickly, it can even skip the 21-day waiting period.

In fact, Canada’s Parliament has never fully reviewed or voted on a treaty before it was ratified — not once in our history. Every other G7 country has a legal process that gives their parliaments that power. Canada is the only one that doesn’t, and as such major international agreements can be signed without real parliamentary oversight or accountability.

A Proposed Law to Review Treaties Before Ratification

There is a private member’s bill before Parliament — Bill C-228 — that aims to make Canada’s treaty process more transparent and accountable. It’s written in the right spirit, recognizing that major international agreements should be reviewed by Parliament before Canada is bound by them.

However, the bill is technically weak and poorly structured, which could make it hard to review the number of international documents that Canada signs each year. Still, it raises an important principle: Canadians deserve strong oversight when their government makes binding commitments abroad.

International cooperation is important, but only Canada’s Parliament should set our national direction. Safeguarding sovereignty and democracy means ensuring the people’s representatives—not the government in power alone—have a voice in every major decision.

Before Canada Signs, Canadians Must Be Heard

Thanks to the engagement of countless Canadians and concerned citizens around the world, the most extreme provisions in the WHO Pandemic Treaty were removed ——these measures would have undermined national healthcare sovereignty and given international bureaucrats sweeping powers. The removal of provisions on vaccine mandates, misinformation and disinformation, censorship requirements, travel restrictions, global surveillance, and mandatory health measures happened because people paid attention and spoke up!

But Canadians should not have to fight this hard every time.

We need a permanent, transparent process in our own Parliament to review and debate major treaties before Canada commits to them. A national treaty review law would act as a democratic safeguard, ensuring that future agreements are examined openly, that overreach is checked, and that the voices of Canadians are always heard before any government binds the country to new international obligations.

Until that safeguard is in place, let’s continue to raise our voices. Before Canada ratifies the Pandemic Treaty, sign the petition, write to your MP, and share this call to make sure Parliament, and Canadians, have a say about which international treaties will bind our nation.

In Your Service,

Leslyn Lewis
Member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Ex-FDA Commissioners Against Higher Vaccine Standards Took $6 Million From COVID Vaccine Makers

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

Ten of the twelve former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioners and acting commissioners opposed to the Trump administration’s stiffer standards for vaccines quietly disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry, a Daily Caller News Foundation review shows.

The FDA old guard criticized the new leadership in a Dec. 3 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) letter over a higher regulatory bar for vaccines, namely the expectation that most new vaccine approvals will require randomized clinical trials, arguing it could hamper the market.

“Insisting on long, expensive outcomes studies for every updated formulation would delay the arrival of better-matched vaccines when new outbreaks emerge or when additional groups of patients could benefit,” the former commissioners wrote. “Abandoning the existing methods won’t ‘elevate vaccine science’ … It will subject vaccines to a substantially higher and more subjective approval bar.”

But while the former commissioners disclosed their conflicts of interest to the medical journal — per standard practice in scientific publishing — reporters didn’t relay them to the broader public in reports in the Washington PostSTAT News and CNN.

The headlines about a bipartisan rebuke from former occupants of FDA’s highest office give the impression that the Trump administration is contravening established science, but closer inspection reveals a revolving door between pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies overseeing them.

Three of the signatories have received payments totaling $6 million from manufacturers or former manufacturers of COVID vaccines.

Scott Gottlieb has received $2.1 million in cash and stock from his position on the Pfizer board of directors, where he has advised on ethics and regulatory compliance since 2019, according to company filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stephen Ostroff has received $752,310 from Pfizer in consulting fees since 2020, according to OpenPayments.

Mark McClellan has received $3.3 million from Johnson & Johnson as a member of the board of directors since 2013, SEC filings also show. McClellan also consults for the new pharmaceutical arm of the alternative investment management company Blackstone, which invested $750 million in Moderna in April 2025.

Gottlieb and McClellan did not respond to requests for comment. Ostroff could not be reached for comment.

FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad outlined the higher standards and shared the results of an internal analysis validating 10 reports of children’s deaths following the COVID-19 vaccine in a Nov. 28 memo to staff. He called for introspection and reform at the agency.

The NEJM letter criticizes Prasad for cracking down on a practice called “immunobridging” that infers vaccine efficacy from laboratory tests rather than assessing it through real-world reductions in disease or death. The FDA under the Biden administration expanded COVID vaccines to children using this “immunobridging” technique, extrapolating vaccine efficacy from adults to children based on antibody levels.

Norman Sharpless — who in addition to previously serving as acting FDA commissioner also served as the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute — consults for Tempus, a company that collaborates with COVID vaccine maker BioNTech. He has helped steer $70 million in investments in biotech through a venture capital firm he founded in November 2024. Sharpless also disclosed $26,180 in payments in 2024 from Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese pharmaceutical company that markets mRNA technology among other drugs, on OpenPayments.

“I was grateful for the opportunity to serve as NCI Director and Acting FDA Commissioner in the first Trump Administration, and strongly support many of the things President Trump is trying to do in the current Administration,” Sharpless said in an email.

Margaret Hamburg, another former FDA commissioner and signatory of the NEJM letter, has since 2020 earned $2.8 million as a member of the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which markets RNA interference (RNAi) technology.

Hamburg did not respond to a message on LinkedIn.

Most signatories disclosed income from biotech companies testing experimental cancer treatments. These products could face tighter scrutiny under Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist long wary of rubberstamping pricey oncology drugs — which Prasad points out often cause some toxicity — without plausible evidence of an improvement in quality of life or survival.

The former FDA commissioners disclosed ties to Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; OncoNano Medicine; incyclix; Nucleus Radiopharma; and N-Power, a contractor that runs oncology clinical trials.

Andrew von Eschenbach, who like Sharpless formerly served both as FDA commissioner and the head of the National Cancer Institute, disclosed stock in HistoSonics, a company with investments from Bezos Expeditions and Thiel Bio seeking FDA approval for ultrasound technology targeted at tumors.

Some FDA commissioners who signed onto the letter opposing changes to vaccine approvals have ties to biotechnology investment firms, namely McClellan, who consults Arsenal Capital; Janet Woodcock, who consults RA Capital Management; and Robert Califf, who owns stock in Population Health Partners.

Califf did not respond to an email requesting comment. Woodcock did not respond to requests for comment sent to two medical research advocacy groups with Woodcock on the board. Eschenbach did not respond to a LinkedIn message.

The two signatories without pharmaceutical ties may find their judgement challenged by the FDA investigation into COVID-19 vaccine deaths, having either implemented or formally defended the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of vaccines and boosters to healthy adults and children.

David Kessler executed Biden’s vaccination policy as chief science officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, helping to secure deals for shots with Pfizer and Moderna.

Meanwhile Jane Henney chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report published in October 2025 that praised the performance of FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine surveillance during the pandemic — underwritten with CDC funding.

That assessment clashes with that of a Senate report, citing internal documents from FDA, finding that CDC never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, and that top officials in the Biden administration delayed warning pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after their approval in some children in May 2021, months after Israeli health officials first detected it in February 2021. The Senate investigation named Woodcock, a signatory of the NEJM letter, as one of the FDA officials who slow-walked the warning.

Continue Reading

Health

RFK Jr reversing Biden-era policies on gender transition care for minors

Published on

From The Center Square

By

HHS is also working to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt” to classify gender dysphoria as a type of disability.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unveiled a multi-pronged regulatory effort Thursday to curtail gender-affirming care for minors, including gender transition procedures at hospitals.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has drafted a rule that would prohibit pharmaceutical or surgical gender reassignment procedures from receiving federal Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program funding. It’s also proposing a rule that would allow it to withdraw Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals that perform such surgeries on minors. HHS is also working to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt” to classify gender dysphoria as a type of disability. If gender dysphoria were to be defined as a disability, then health care providers who don’t want to perform what the department has dubbed “sex-rejecting” procedures could be in danger of violating anti-discrimination laws.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr., described gender affirming procedures as “unsafe” and “irreversible,” and framed the administration’s actions as “[protecting] America’s most vulnerable.”

“Our children deserve better – and we are delivering on that promise,” Kennedy told reporters Thursday.

The department is acting on directives from an executive order from President Donald Trump’s first few weeks in office. The Jan. 28 order called on government agencies to “[defund] chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, seemingly in the manner that HHS has proposed, as well as “rescind or amend all policies” relying on guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

The Food and Drug Administration is also taking regulatory action against some organizations that market breast binders to minors.

“Illegal marketing of these products for children is alarming, and the FDA will take further enforcement action such as import alerts, seizures, and injunctions if it continues,” said Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary.

Kennedy signed a declaration Thursday that gender affirming procedures for minors “do not meet professionally recognized standards of health care” and the Assistant Secretary for Health and Head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Admiral Brian Christine, signed a public health message stating the same.

“Evidence shows sex-rejecting puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries are dangerous. Providers have an obligation to offer care grounded in evidence and to avoid interventions that expose young people to a lifetime of harm,” Christine said.

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would criminalize the act of providing gender affirming care to minors.

Continue Reading

Trending

X