Suchergebnisse

The 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) exposed serious limitations in Canada's ability to respond to a public health emergency. Considerable progress has been made since SARS in addressing these limitations, including the creation of the new Public Health Agency of Canada. A remaining contentious question is whether there is a need for new federal emergency public health powers. Approaches to public health problems are best handled through collaborative processes, recognizing the critical importance of the local public health response. Nevertheless, this paper argues that a legislative back-up plan must be available to the federal government in the event that collaborative relationships break down. At the minimum, legislation should give the federal government the authority to have guaranteed access to surveillance data during a public health emergency. The legislation should also consider providing the federal government with the authority to devote the nation's resources to the management of an emergency at its earliest stages. However, any legislative approach must be combined with the development of appropriate capacity at the national level to ensure that new powers can be adequately utilized and that required funding reaches public health officials at other levels of government.

This article reviews some of the challenges to developing national public health programs, focussing on the distribution of constitutional authority for public health and governance challenges that arise from this. Constitutional authority for public health resides primarily with the provinces. The federal government has obtained the authority to legislate in this area primarily through its power over criminal law. Challenges facing the establishment of national public health programs include the ambiguity over constitutional responsibility, challenges in managing externalities and spillovers, and issues related to funding and data ownership. Policymaking is also complicated by the importance of municipal and supranational governments in public health. National programs need to be structured in a way that balances the advantages of regional approaches to public health challenges with the benefits of a coordinated central response. To do so, policy-makers need to address unique challenges to public health governance.

The US Court of Federal Claims, which adjudicates cases for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, has been confronted with more than 5000 cases submitted on behalf of children with autism spectrum disorders, seeking to link the condition to vaccination.

Immunization is a public health area in which the intergovernmental challenges of formulating a national policy are evident. It is also an area in which harmonization of policy across Canada is particularly critical. The National Immunization Strategy was a F/P/T initiative designed to achieve this policy goal. The combination of national guidelines and flexible federal funding via a trust has, to date, been effective in improving equality of access to vaccines in provincial/territorial programmes with limited intergovernmental discord. The long-term success of the initiative will, however, largely depend on ongoing federal financial support and provincial/territorial views on national guidelines. This approach to immunization is a model that would lend itself well to other public health areas in which there is large variability in provincial/territorial programmes, where uniformity of programmes is particularly important and where there is a reluctance or inability of the federal government to legislatively mandate the harmonization of programmes.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent "traditional" native interests. Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.

As the world continues to grapple with the COVID‐19 pandemic, the preparedness of governments to respond to it will likely undergo review. A key component is the legislative capacity and authority that governments had in place or could rapidly introduce to address the social, economic and health consequences of the emergency. We review Canada's legal preparedness for public health emergencies and the use of federal legislation to address the pandemic. We provide an overview of the concept of legal preparedness, summarize the federal statutes, regulations and orders enacted, and analyze the coherence of federal activity and its relevance to provinces, territories and international health regulations. We determine that the federal government has relied on spending power rather than constitutional authority over public health or existing legislation on influencing the course of the pandemic.