1 / 29

Presentation to Increasing Policy Influence and Engagement of National Public

Canadian Experiences in Public Health Advocacy: Canadian Public Health Association The authoritative non-governmental voice for public health in Canada since 1910. Presentation to Increasing Policy Influence and Engagement of National Public

aldis
Download Presentation

Presentation to Increasing Policy Influence and Engagement of National Public

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Canadian Experiences inPublic Health Advocacy:Canadian Public Health Association The authoritative non-governmental voice for public health in Canada since 1910 Presentation to Increasing Policy Influence and Engagement of National Public Health Associations in Africa; Progress and Challenges 13th World Congress on Public Health April 23, 2012 James Chauvin, Director of Policy jchauvin@cpha.ca

  2. Presentation • Canadian Public Health Association • CPHA’s Policy Platform • Two case studies: - Chrysotile Asbestos - Insite (supervised injection facility) • Social Determinants of Health • Implications for CPHA

  3. CPHA: What is it? • Founded in 1910 • Act of Parliament 1912 • Represents public health in Canada with links to the international public health community • Only Canadian NGO solely focused on public health • Only national voice for PH in Canada until 2003

  4. CPHA: Who are we? • National in scope, international in reach • Voluntary individual membership • Charitable status • Primarily an advocacy organization • CPHA members believe in universal and equitable access to the basic conditions which are necessary to achieve health for all Canadians

  5. Some days, policy advocacy feels like this….

  6. And some days you may need some of this….

  7. And then there are the days when it all goes like this….

  8. CPHA’s Policy Advocacy History • 101 years advocating for healthy public policy & practice • 50 years advocating on tobacco use/control • 30 years advocating for health equity/SDH • 1990s: focus on health systems reform

  9. CPHA’s Policy Advocacy History • 2003: SARS – outcomes: • Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) established • Position of Chief Public Health Officer of Canada created • Public health system response capacity reviewed/strengthened • Greater awareness about importance to invest in “public health” • 2009: pH1N1 – outcomes: • PH system responded to major national emergency • Important role of PHAC in working in coordinated fashion with provinces/territories • Mixed PH messages to public and front-line health practitioners • Resources for front-line health units and practitioners • High stress on and very limited front-line public health “surge capacity”

  10. CPHA Priority Policy Foci • Health Equity/Poverty/Social Determinants of Health (including housing, transport, indigenous health, etc) • Public Health Leadership • Public Health Infrastructure (including human resources) • Chronic Disease Prevention • Environmental Health * does not exclude infectious disease prevention, health promotion, mental health, nutrition, etc.

  11. What did CPHA do in 2010/11? • Position statements on Chrysotile Asbestos, Tobacco Use in Canada and PH Approach to Alcohol • Opposed federal government decisions on gun control, long-form census, mandatory prison sentences • Application for intervener status before Supreme Court (Insite appeal) • Analysis of CPHA’s Documents and Statements over 30 years and Recommendations for Future Action • Response to the 2010 and 2011 Federal Budgets • Presentation to several Parliamentary committees • NCD Prevention, SDH/health equity 11

  12. CPHA Policy/advocacy 2012+ • Position Papers on Ecosystem Health and Illegal Psychoactive Substances • Endorsement of Low-Risk Cannabis Guidelines • The place of Public Health within a renewed Federal/Provincial/Territorial Health Fund Transfer Agreement • The SDH/Health Equity as they affect particularly vulnerable populations (youth, indigenous people) 12

  13. Mining and Export of Chrysotile Asbestos Photo: Sonumadhavan photo by Alexey Plovarov

  14. CPHA’s Position • Ban mining, use and export of asbestos • Cease funding of Chrysotile Institute • Establish national surveillance system and registry for asbestos-related diseases and workers exposed to asbestos • Just/adequate transition assistance income support and training for asbestos industry workers and financial assistance to their communities • Complete removal and replacement of asbestos-containing insulation in indigenous community housing • Fair compensation provided to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases • All public and commercial buildings have asbestos-containing materials identified and managed to observe strict OH&S standards

  15. Quo vadis? • Investigate the use of federal funds provided to the Chrysotile Institute • Continue to communicate CPHA’s position and concerns to GoC and media • Advocate for Cdn technical assistance to build OH&S policies and practice in export recipient countries • Continue engaging Cdn PH community on the issue

  16. Safe Injection Drug Facility: Insite

  17. What is Insite? • PHS Community Services Society – non-profit community NGO • Provides housing and support to hard to reach, house and treat people in Vancouver’s downtown east side • Health & social services facility authorized and funded by British Columbia gov’t • Houses Canada’s only safe injection facility

  18. Population of DTES • Injection drug use = 15 years average • 51% inject heroin; 32% cocaine • 87% infected with HCV; 17% HIV • 18% aboriginal • 20% homeless, majority living in poor housing • 80% have been incarcerated • 38% involved in sex trade • 59% reported a non-fatal overdose • 21% using methadone

  19. The Issue People using illegal injection drugs within confines of safe injection facility liable to prosecution for possessing a controlled substance [CDSA, s. 4(1)] Insite staff liable to prosecution for trafficking [CDSA, s 5(1)] Users and staff afforded exemption from prosecution by federal Minister of Health under CDSA s. 56 (September 2003, for 3 yrs)

  20. Judicial Issues • Federal constitutional power to legislate re criminal law cannot interfere with provincial power re health care – interjurisdictional immunity/paramountcy • CDSA sections 4(1) and 5(1) unconstitutional – deprive people addicted to one or more controlled substances access to health care – violates S7 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms • Unfettered discretion of Minister of Health unconstitutional

  21. Judicial Interventions Supreme Court of British Columbia (2008). Plaintiff: PHS Community Services et al/Defendant: Attorney General of Canada Court of Appeal for British Columbia (2010). Plaintiff: Attorney General of Canada et al/Defendant: PHS Community Services et al. Supreme Court of Canada (May 2011). Appellant: Attorney General of Canada et al/Respondent: PHS Community Services et al Several interveners, including CPHA

  22. CPHA’s Position • Addiction is an illness, not a lifestyle choice • Insite reduces risk to overdose and infection, promotes counselling/treatment • Drugs do not cause HIV or HCV • Risk morbidity/mortality associated with injecting reduced with presence of qualified health professional • Insite did not increase drug-related loitering, drug dealing, drug-related crime, drug use nor promote “drug use acceptable” messaging

  23. CPHA’s Legal Arguments • CDSA s. 4(1) is unconstitutional as applied to health care services delivered at Insite – deprives individuals of their life, liberty and security interests • s. 4(1) fails to protect the public from harms associated with drug use • s. 4(1) provision “overboard, arbitrary and grossly disproportionate, violating s. 7 of Charter • “discouraging the use of safe-injection services harms individual and public health and safety”

  24. Supreme Court Decision (30/09/11) • Unanimous, written by Chief Justice • The delivery of health care services is not immune from federal interference • CDSA constitutionally valid and applicable to Insite under fed/prov division of powers • However, application of CDSA ss. 4(1) & 5(1) deprives Insite clients of Charter rights (s. 7) • Covers staff (possession/trafficking) and clients • Minister of Health compelled to provide exemption

  25. Where do we go from here? • Insite can operate – Minister obliged to provide exemption • Future safe-injection drug sites • Application of Charter 7 to other harm reduction situations

  26. Frontline Health: Beyond Health Care • Building the case for investments in public health and in particular the SDH • Develop position statement on a whole-of-government approach to health equity/SDH • Creating awareness/understanding among media, politicians and press • Knowledge exchange/transfer within Cdn PH community (experiential) • Telling the story about HE/SDH in Canada

  27. Implications for CPHA • Raises visibility of CPHA • Impact/influence on policy and practice • Reinforced/expanded advocacy activities • Puts us in the federal government’s sites

  28. “The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Albert Einstein

More Related