Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Did those discussions involve Health Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat or the minister's office?
Board Chair, Canada Health Infoway
There were extensive and ongoing conversations with Health Canada—we did not directly deal with the Treasury Board—and as part of that with the minister's office.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Were they specifically about the low uptake of the program or the financial viability of the program?
Board Chair, Canada Health Infoway
Yes, that was a concern of ours around all ideas on how to get provinces and territories to either mandate or incentivize.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
What concrete actions has the government taken as a result of these discussions?
Board Chair, Canada Health Infoway
The governments, I think, were concerned with.... The government was keen to have the conversations at the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health conference. That was discussed there, as well as at the conference of deputy ministers. That was brought forward by the federal government.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, I would just like to inform you that I will be moving a motion. The witness's answers show that there are still significant grey areas in terms of what the government knew at the time it received this information and the decisions it made.
My motion is as follows:
That the committee invite the Minister of Health, as well as officials from Health Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, to appear for at least two hours on the subject of PrescribeIT, including decisions related to the continuation of funding, the termination of the program, the management of the transition, and the consequences for Quebec, within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, or at the earliest opportunity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
Before I open debate, I will have to distribute the motion.
We'll suspend the meeting.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward, especially after the testimony we've heard in the last couple of committee meetings around PrescribeIT. Now we're getting a better understanding of Canada Health Infoway. We are talking about $300 million that's basically still missing. No answers I heard here today would actually justify anything more than what we found out over the last couple of weeks just by digging ourselves.
There were reports today. We all of a sudden found out that Canada Health Infoway wasn't even keeping its website updated. I mean, that should give some indication of just how they ran and managed programs.
I think the more shocking testimony today was around how the chair of Canada Health Infoway, Dr. Vaughan, has not talked to our current health minister. I think that should be very concerning. This has been a very public disposition we've been having here, a conversation the media has picked up on. Liberals have been trying to cover it up. They once shut off the cameras on us. We tried to even find out...to get the Auditor General in here, and we still haven't heard back from her.
There are lots of questions here. There is a lot of attention. I think it would serve the Canadian public and everyone here a lot better if we did get the minister in here and have her answer these very, very important questions. This is not just $300 million. This is a 10-year wreck. It's unbelievable. The complete disregard for the outcomes of this program is unbelievable. I cannot believe, every time I open up a document and research this program, how Canada Health Infoway has done in the last decade. It's just deplorable. I'm getting lots of emails and lots of phone calls from very frustrated taxpayers and Canadians: How dare they pull this off?
With that, I fully support this motion.
That's all I have to say about that.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I agree that this is all worth looking into. I'd like to move an amendment to this to remove “and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat” and remove “within two weeks of the adoption of the motion”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
We have an amendment on the floor. Is there debate on the amendment?
Madam Konanz, please go ahead.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
We're going to need to bring this information forward to the Canadian public. Unfortunately, in the last couple of weeks, we've had instances where we've had information that's been behind closed doors that won't be available to the Canadian public for 30 years. Let's not do that again. Let's get this information out.
I can't support this amendment, because people want to know now, and I know every MP around this table is wondering what happened to the $300,000—
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Yes, you're right. It's $300 million. That's crazy. It's so wrong that we have testimony and witnesses who say, “It's okay, it's a success. We've lost $300 million, but it's a success.” It is wrong. Let's get the health minister in here to answer questions. That's her job, and we need to get her in quickly, because again, I'm sure the media and Canadian people are going to want to know why the minister can't come in right away.
Liberal
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We are currently seeing an adjustment to what we have been observing for the past few days. Unfortunately, the government is trying to reduce accountability for its actions. We invested $300 million in a program that will be terminated in a few weeks, at the end of May, and now they are trying to remove the reference to the Treasury Board Secretariat from my motion. For those following our work, I would remind you that it is Treasury Board that signs the checks. It is Treasury Board that manages the money. We haven't received much explanation from our colleague, but he says that those who manage the money don't need to come here to explain to us the decisions they make regarding financial management.
So, it is appropriate to summon officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat. I repeat: If we want to discuss public funds, governance, contracts, termination, transition or even accountability, we need these people, because they are the ones making the decisions. If we want to understand the financial and administrative decisions surrounding PrescripTIon, representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat are relevant witnesses. Removing this from the motion would weaken the committee's ability to track public funds and understand the decisions made by Treasury Board.
Next, my colleague proposes removing the two-week deadline. We've lost $300 million in public funds on an e‑prescription program, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for the government to understand what happened and learn from its mistakes. My colleague wants to remove the deadline, which would make it easy to postpone the motion indefinitely. We could put it off indefinitely, as they say.
Given the $300 million spent and the program's imminent end, the committee must act quickly, in my view. We have been asking questions—I think you are aware—for several weeks and trying to obtain information or documents from the government. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to summon these witnesses within two weeks, or at the earliest opportunity, as stated in the motion I have tabled.
This is all the more reasonable and important given the mounting scandals involving the Liberal government. I would remind you of the scandals surrounding Phoenix, ArriveCAN, and Cúram, to which we can now add the one involving PrescripTIon. The government is sweeping this under the rug by telling us that it is not important to talk about it, that there is no need to shed light on it or conduct independent public inquiries, even if we fail to achieve the expected results.
Today, Ms. Ensor from Canada Health Infoway told us that, for the program to be viable, we needed to reach a 75% usage rate. Well, $300 million later, we've managed to reach 5%. The government does not think it is important to say that we really need to investigate this, get the facts, and ensure that it does not happen again. So, I urge my colleagues in the government to ensure sound management of public funds. That is, in fact, what the Prime Minister said he would do, even though that is not what he demonstrated in the last budget. He announced the largest deficit in Canadian history. However, as good stewards of public funds, we must investigate the PrescripTIon program.
There is a question I have been asking myself for a long time, and I would like to share it with my colleagues, the members of the committee, and the general public. The government must have known that there were problems somewhere. A review of the program's viability was conducted in 2023, yet investment in it continued, and it was only two years later, in 2025, that the decision was finally made to completely terminate the program.
I hope the government will explain the various decisions it made in this matter, because it is concerning. That is why I want its representatives to appear before us. Even after the decision was made to end the program, an additional $10 million was allocated.
I hope my colleagues will see reason regarding the motion, which is entirely reasonable and legitimate.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
Thank you, Chair.
Actually, there is merit to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas's statements. What I would like to propose is perhaps a friendly amendment. We're willing to remove the amendment about removing the secretariat, so the invitation would include the secretariat. However, given that the minister and the staff of the secretariat have very busy schedules, it might not be feasible for them to come in two weeks. I would therefore like to amend the motion to remove “within two weeks”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
We have an amendment on the floor. We have to first decide on the amendment, and then you can propose another—unless I have unanimous consent.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
May I have unanimous consent to remove my reference to the secretariat?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
If there is unanimous consent, only then.... Otherwise, there should be no long talk.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, I would just like some clarification from my colleague, in the interest of transparency. Why does he now consider it important to invite representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat, when he did not consider it important earlier?
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
On further consideration and listening to your arguments, it made sense. Therefore, we decided to agree with this.