Health Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That still really worries me. I'm not trying to overstate things or anything, but it just seems, when you extrapolate the 22 out of 154 for which there was no documentation to the whole $2.6 billion worth of activity—Well, maybe you guys could share notes, and then you will be satisfied at the end. But I'm taking the final authority's word for it, that of the Office of the Auditor General. If she's not satisfied—

[Sheila Fraser]

Madam Chairman, we would rely on the work the department has done. If they have said they've gone through and audited all this and are satisfied with it, we would be generally satisfied with that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Hmm. Okay.

Do I have any time left?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christiane Gagnon]

In principle, your time is up, but, since there remains one final question from Mr. Batters and, after that, we'll be done, if you have one final question, I'll let you ask it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is as a point of added clarification. In the earlier round of questioning I was quoting the Canada Gazette, which has now listed asbestos as suitable for children's toys. I would like to restate that I object in the strongest possible terms. I just looked up the actual language, and it does clearly state that it's legal to sell, import, and export asbestos in children's toys as of November 11, 2006, in Canada.

I find this offensive. I find it reprehensible. I don't know what kind of product review could have possibly taken place to contemplate such an outrageous thing.

[Susan Fletcher]

I would just like to add that—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christiane Gagnon]

Are you answering the question, Ms. Fletcher?

[Susan Fletcher]

May I respond?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christiane Gagnon]

Yes, that's fine.

[Susan Fletcher]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, and I will go back and verify the language. I am surprised to hear the language as you describe it, and we will verify exactly what's there and get back to both you and the committee.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Batters, over to you.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is following up on something that Mr. Potter revealed to this committee in response to my colleague, Mrs. Gallant. You were talking about the number of cases that were audited—for example, a dentist or a pharmacist—and I believe you said 905 cases were audited and roughly $4.4 million was recovered for the Canadian taxpayer. Was that correct, sir? That's for 905 audited cases.

Then did you say that there are 15 million cases? Over what period of time was that?

[Ian Potter]

No, I said there were 15 million billings processed in a year.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

In a year.

So 905 billings yielded savings to the Canadian taxpayer of $4.5 million. Let's do the simple math, then—and we're dealing with big figures here. So 15 million billings, then, in one year would equal x number of savings for the Canadian taxpayer. Does anyone have a calculator handy? Maybe the Auditor General, who's good with numbers, can—? This would be an astronomical figure. Perhaps we should be investing more money into much bigger end samples in terms of our audits, because this would be an absolutely massive number that would be returned to the Canadian taxpayer.

Do you see where I'm going with this, Mr. Potter?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ian Potter]

Yes. Yes, I do.

Perhaps I could just clarify so we get the proportions, Madam Chairman. There's a difference between the number of service providers and the number of claims they submit. I'm told that there are around 8,000 pharmacies that bill us on a regular basis and approximately 15,000 dentists. As I was explaining earlier to a question, the system of audits is not simply random, and we have a number of other tests to ensure that the bills we received--those 15 million claim lines--are valid and reasonable.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

So you're telling me, sir--because we're going to be cut off here by the clock—that with the 905, then, there were certain red flags that came up to indicate that they should be looked at. What percentage of those red flags do you look at, sir? When you say 905 were checked out, was that all of them, or was that maybe 5% of the red flags?

[Ian Potter]

I think there are a variety of different scales by which we get into audits. These are actual visits to the suppliers' premises.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

That's a pretty basic question, though, for what you do for a living.

[Ian Potter]

I can provide the committee with some of the detailed parameters. In some ways we try not to be too precise in exactly what we do, because it's a way of enforcing the regime and we don't want to give an advantage to those people who want to try to avoid the departmental audit.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Is it fair to say, though, that you don't audit anywhere close to the number of red flags that appear; it's a small percentage of the red flags?

[Ian Potter]

I can assure the committee that our process for audit and verification meets and exceeds industry standards.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I'd like for Mr. Potter and the officials to follow up with our committee on exactly how that works, and follow up on the red flag process, because Canadians watching at home today would be very interested to know that 905 audits yield $4.5 million back to the taxpayers. This is a bit of a gong show, frankly.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Christiane Gagnon]

Does that mean that the committee could receive the answer that you can't give today with any accuracy and that we'll have the figures in our hands in order to clarify matters?

In closing, I would like to thank all the Health Canada representatives for being here today.

Ms. Fraser, thank you for ringing our bells and sounding the alarm when the time comes. You do that marvellously well. Public administration is a matter of public funds. I thank you for being with us today.

The meeting is adjourned.