Speak to the motion, please.
Evidence of meeting #30 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chi.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #30 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chi.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Yes. I am speaking to the motion of MP Mazier, in which we have an order for papers having to do with the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal.
I'm really surprised that the Liberal members are not supporting it, because they have supported bringing in representatives from PrescribeIT and Canada Health Infoway, which was incredibly supportive. Representatives of all parties here voted unanimously to bring in representatives from those organizations next week. If you look back at the debate, they agreed that something was happening that was not being revealed and that Canadians had been ripped off for $300 million.
I do not understand why they wouldn't want to get the paperwork necessary to prove that the $300 million was misspent. That's all we're asking for.
I'm sure the Liberal members want to see the proof, just as they want to talk to members of those organizations and find out what really happened. I'm sure that the next Liberal member who speaks will speak directly to the $300-million rip-off of Canadian taxpayers; otherwise, they will be called to task. Canadians will want to know why they are filibustering when we need to find out more about this scandal.
I really look forward to hearing the next Liberal member sitting here describe to Canadians tonight why they do not want Canadians, along with the MPs who represent them from across the country, to see the paperwork that will prove there was wrongdoing. I really look forward to hearing why these Liberal members do not want to see proof of this scandal.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is the health committee. We all work together for the betterment of Canadians.
We also have questions for the witnesses. We want to know what happened, and the opposition cannot blame us.
One thing I want to put on the record is that when my colleague Ms. Chi was speaking, there was unacceptable behaviour. We all want to work for Canadians. That was unacceptable. Members said this is happening in our committee. We are not hiding anything. The opposition can say whatever they want.
It's not like they have a different heart and we have a different heart. We all have the same heart. We all want to serve Canadians in a better way. This is about protecting integrity. We don't want to play games with the opposition. This is unredacted.... The only limited exception raises serious concerns. We accepted the other motion, but when the witnesses see what kind of behaviour we are displaying.... When the opposition is speaking, we don't say anything, but when my colleague—
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
I want to put this on the record, Madam Chair.
It's happening all the time. They interrupted Ms. Chi. They don't want to listen. This is not acceptable. I'm really frustrated to see that.
I want to say one thing. Allowing unredacted documents with only a limited exception raises serious concerns. It's not like we are hiding. We see that, but this is not the time. When they put the motion up, they didn't give us time. There were witnesses. We were asking questions, and it's not like we aren't going the right way.
I just want to discuss part (e) of the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. I cannot hear because there is disorder in the room from people speaking quite loudly.
Members, if you wish to discuss something, could you allow the meeting to continue and instead go outside in the corridor to speak to each other? If you're going to speak so loudly, it disrupts the proceedings.
I'm sorry, Ms. Sidhu. Continue.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
This is another point I want to put on the record. This is unacceptable behaviour.
What the Bloc member said to you, Madam Chair, was unacceptable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We have dealt with that, Ms. Sidhu. We are talking about the motion on the floor presented by—
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
The behaviour of the opposition is not unacceptable. When I'm speaking, I cannot hear. No one is listening.
Liberal
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me talk about part (e), “Viability analyses and program evaluations”.
These documents are, by their very nature, part of the internal policy process. They include candid assessments. They include risks. They include recommendations. Those recommendations are meant to inform decision-makers in a way that is honest, true and sometimes critical. If public servants believe that every internal analysis could be disclosed in full without appropriate protections, it makes it harder for them to pull some thousands of thousands of documents.
We want to present some amendments too. This is why we need time. That is what we are saying. We are not saying no, but we need time. This is, frankly, untimely. It makes it harder for the government to make informed decisions.
I come to part (f), “Documents that led to the decision to terminate the program”. This category almost certainly includes briefings to the minister, recommendations, and decision-making records. There are long-standing principles respected by governments of all stripes regarding these types of documents, so we have to see what we are requesting. I don't think the time frame is enough. This is not about avoiding accountability. This is about respecting the framework that allows government to respond to thousands and thousands of unredacted documents. We want to work with the opposition. It's a long motion.
Through investment in the organization, we have supported the development of tools that improve patient safety and enhance data security and have made historic investments through health transfers to provinces in health workforce retention and recruitment. We invest in mental health services....
I have to ask what the objective is. They cannot blame us for that. We also want to be transparent. We already have a mechanism to ensure accountability. If the object is to improve health care delivery, we should be focusing on how to strengthen systems like PrescribeIT, not undermining them through broad and potentially harmful disclosure requirements. If the objective is to support patients, we should be listening to the witnesses in front of us, who can provide insight into how these systems work on the ground. Instead, this motion demands extremely broad document production and imposes an unrealistic deadline. A one-week deadline is not enough and risks exposing confidential, sensitive or protected information.
This is something that takes time away from the very witnesses who are here to help us do our job better. We can do better if we work together. The amendments.... We are not opposing what they are saying. We also want to work together for the betterment of the health of Canadians.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Madam Chair, I'm not finished. We didn't talk much about this during the questions. I want to let Canadians know that when witnesses are here, this routinely happens. They started reading a motion, and we were not ready. If they give us time, we'll bring amendments. We can work together. We want to work together. They blame us, but we're not hiding anything. I want to put that on the record.
We want to focus on the health of Canadians, too, but the opposition is saying this is unacceptable. They are making scandals. On the last motion, we worked very well. They did the same thing. When witnesses were here, they put up a motion, and then we worked with them. It's happening again. We want to work with them, but we need time.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
You might find this is not a point of order; however, it is brought up in very good faith.
I understand there are discussions happening among parties. If you found the room disorderly today, Madam Chair, I think it might have to do with the fact that parties have not been on the same page. We're trying to rectify that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will resume the meeting.
I understand that all parties have been working on a resolution, which is good. We should be able to work together on these things.
When the meeting was suspended, the last person speaking was Ms. Sidhu. I understand that I now have Ms. Chi on my list. I'm going by the list I have, which is the list I must go by.
Ms. Chi, are you prepared to speak, or shall I pass the floor to the next person?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Actually, Ms. Chi, your name is the next on the list. If you wish to not use your time, I will go to the next person on the list. Will you use your time to speak?
Liberal
Liberal
