Leslyn Lewis questions Canada's pandemic response and 'One Health' approach

In a pointed question to the federal government, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is demanding answers about Canada's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its commitment to the “One Health” approach, a concept supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) that claims to address health challenges across human, animal and environmental sectors.

Lewis is seeking a comprehensive review of Canada's pandemic response, asking if the government has formally assessed its COVID-19 strategy and if not, when Canadians can expect such a review.

I have, and will continue to sound an alarm when any international body attempts to encroach on our nation's sovereignty. We do not need the WHO telling Canada how we should respond to a pandemic. We need our own pandemic response plan. Do you agree? https://t.co/zM7fnNMcZw pic.twitter.com/dppOY81IB9

Lewis also inquires about the government's definition of a pandemic and what “One Health” means in its view. She presses further, questioning how the government plans to align with the WHO's proposed amendments to international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty. She also wants to know how Canada's emission reduction targets factor into the “One Health” approach, in an attempt to highlight the intersection between health, climate and environmental policies.

In response, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), led by Dr. Theresa Tam, pointed to several reports, including the “Public Health Agency of Canada’s COVID-19 Response: Lessons Learned.” Worth noting, the full details of the report are only available to the public only upon request.

PHAC claims that the protection of Canadians’ health remains the government’s top priority, recognizing the revitalization of pandemic preparedness plans like the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness document. However, the government's pandemic response has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and for ignoring established plans and procedures in favour of reactive, knee-jerk and inconsistent measures.

Indeed, the response was driven by political pressure rather than sound public health data or evidence-based advice. From the arbitrary implementation of lockdowns to the fluctuating advice on mask-wearing, border closures, and vaccine passports, the government's actions were marked by confusion, inconsistency and hysteria.

Moreover, the use of high-cycle PCR tests for asymptomatic individuals and a delay in providing effective treatments caused additional harm, leading to public frustration and a growing sense of distrust in government decisions.

PHAC’s vague response about pandemic definitions also raised concerns. The agency admits it lacks a clear definition of a pandemic, instead relying on the WHO's controversial criteria, which are filled with subjective terms like “high risk” and “substantial disruption.” These terms leave the door open for interpretation, allowing for decisions to be made on an unclear and flexible basis.

Furthermore, the government’s support for the “One Health” approach remains theoretical, with little concrete detail about its implementation. While the government claims to be coordinating efforts across various sectors, the language of collaboration and coordination sounds more like political jargon and public relations messaging than a clear plan of action. The emphasis on abstract concepts such as “global health security” and “disease X” — an undefined potential future pandemic threat — raises suspicions that resources could be misallocated, leaving real, present health needs unaddressed.

If PHAC relies on the globalist entities of the WHO to define pandemics and subsequent responses, how does the government work to ensure national interests are upheld first?

Is the Canadian government truly acting in the best interests of its citizens, or is it prioritizing global health agendas influenced by corporate and pharmaceutical interests?

As global health initiatives evolve, it remains unclear whether Canada's health policies will serve the needs of Canadians or simply align with the priorities of global elites, further eroding democratic accountability and the public's trust in its health institutions.

Related stories