Scope of page:
This page covers the governmental policy and response to disease outbreaks in Canada. There will be a focus on the policy discesions that are made regarding resource allocation and funding in these times of crisis. The importance of public communication about health emergencies and the impact ineffective communication came have will also be explored. The page will discuss the evolution of disease response in Canada and how it impacts current policy. Although many infectious diseases will be dicusssed on this page the case study on response policy in long term/acute care settings will center around the Covid-19 pandemic.
Evolution of Disease Response in Canada
Over the past century, Canada’s public health policies have evolved significantly in response to major crises like the 1918 Spanish influenza, SARS in 2003, and more recent threats like H1N1, Ebola, and Zika. The SARS outbreak was a wake-up call, leading to the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada, improved infection control, and stronger federal-provincial coordination. Subsequent emergencies highlighted the need for adaptable strategies, such as the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan, and advances in diagnostics, vaccines, and emergency response frameworks. Today, Canada continues to refine its scalable, inclusive, and globally connected public health systems to address both infectious and non-infectious crises, emphasizing the importance of research, collaboration, and evidence-based communication.
Federal Government’s current disease response plan
Canada’s Health Portfolio Emergency Response Plan outlines a comprehensive framework for addressing public health emergencies, such as disease outbreaks. It focuses on coordinated efforts among federal, provincial, and territorial governments to ensure rapid response, clear communication, and resource mobilization. Key elements include: surveillance systems, timely public health interventions, laboratory support, and maintaining healthcare system capacity. The plan also highlights the importance of international collaboration, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous monitoring to adapt to emerging health risks. The Canadian government has also implemented various infection prevention and control measures to reduce healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), or nosocomial infections, in healthcare settings. These guidelines include routine practices like hand hygiene, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and strategies to manage specific infectious diseases such as influenza, tuberculosis, and seasonal illnesses. It also outlines protocols for preventing transmission of bloodborne viruses and antimicrobial-resistant organisms. The guidance is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada and aims to ensure safe environments for both healthcare workers and patients.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/health-risks-safety/health-portfolio-emergency-response-plan.html
Prioritization of disease response and resource allocation
Federalism in Canada can hinder effective public health responses, particularly during disease outbreaks, due to jurisdictional fragmentation and resource allocation challenges. The lack of a unified approach, especially regarding crucial areas like pharmacare, results in inequities and inefficiencies. The federal government’s reliance on spending power to encourage provinces to improve healthcare systems often lacks enforcement mechanisms, and provinces may revert to privatized models. To improve, Canada needs stronger coordination across provincial boundaries, pooled resources for collective purchasing, and expanded federal support to ensure equitable, effective health services for all residents.
Local government plays a crucial role in managing disease outbreaks, particularly in urban settings, where marginalized populations are often the most vulnerable. Research has emphasized the need for effective local responses to issues such as houselessness, requiring rapid adaptation of policies and resource allocation. Although local governments often demonstrate critical reflection on urban poverty management, their efforts are constrained by systemic limitations and a reliance on existing poverty management frameworks. Proper resource allocation, including emergency housing, and coordinated local action are essential to addressing these challenges and mitigating the long-term impacts of disease outbreaks on marginalized communities.
https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law/9780190664817.001.0001/law-9780190664817-chapter-21
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718523001380
Public Communication of Disease Outbreaks
The SARS pandemic and the way it was addressed illustrates the importance of effective communication for public health. Research highlights how transparent, timely, and clear messaging from health authorities influences public behavior, trust, and compliance with safety measures. Effective communication strategies, particularly in the early stages of a pandemic, can significantly shape outcomes by mitigating panic, guiding protective actions, and reducing the spread of disease.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed again how public communication influences policy acceptance during health crises, particularly when risk is uncertain. The differing decisions on school closures in Alberta and Ontario, despite similar epidemiological contexts, underscore the complexity of interpreting evidence. Public health leaders' communication about evidence, and their ability to convey transparency, directly affects public trust in decisions. When governments fail to engage with the complexity of evidence, or simplify the relationship between data and policy, it risks eroding confidence, especially as citizens compare conflicting information. Effective communication is critical in maintaining support for policies.
Decentralized and fragmented communication during public health outbreaks can also have significant negative impacts on policy consistency and public trust. With public health responsibility divided among federal, provincial, and municipal levels, inconsistent messaging and varying timelines for interventions like school closures and mask mandates created confusion. This lack of coordination, coupled with unclear explanations for regional policy differences, undermined public confidence. The absence of a centralized authority to manage data and decision-making further contributed to fragmented guidance, weakening the overall response and reducing policy acceptance across the country.
https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1872258/sars-unmasked/2621338/
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2023-075665
Case Study: Longterm care homes and the Impact of Covid-19 and the governmental response