Health Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify that the second hour panel is still staying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes, they are staying right now. It's the first panel only.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Well, we can get UC right now. Are you guys okay with the motion? We'll get unanimous consent, the motion gets passed and away we go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there unanimous consent to pass the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now we will debate the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Parmar, Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Steele.

On the amendment, we have Madam Konanz, Mr. Mazier, Dr. Strauss—you have your hand up too, okay—and Mr. Bailey.

Madam Konanz, please, go ahead.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Well, it's hard to support the original motion to move on to an AI report when we have not finished our investigation into the PrescribeIT scandal. Over $300 million was used on this boondoggle. I think that word has been used, way overused, during the last week, I have to say, but it's the truth. It's hard to figure out another word to use for it.

We had the CEO of the company here, Mr. Green, telling us that he couldn't actually explain anything about it, yet he had been working on this for 10 years. Within a week of our interviewing him here for this study, in which all members around this table were shocked by his answers—if you look back at the tape, you'll see that all members were shocked—and all members wanted him to come back in person, he was fired.

I will say that the Minister of Health has not had.... We've been asking her continually in Parliament, over and over again, if she could answer the question, “What happened?” She can't answer, so we are trying to get her in here too. She actually said, in Parliament, within this last couple of days, that she was willing to come in here, so let's get her in here.

I think the amendment is appropriate, especially when we're looking at AI and especially if we're looking at the situation and making sure we aren't using fax machines anymore. That was the original intent of PrescribeIT. Well, let's go back before we move on to AI. Let's figure out what happened in trying to replace those fax machines. Let's get Mr. Green in here, and let's get the health minister in here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Mazier,

Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will follow up on my colleagues' comments here.

The motion says “the adoption of artificial intelligence in health care, especially in research and innovation, data collection, health service, and patient-centred care”. If history is any lesson to us all, back in 2016, the Liberals announced a software program that was supposed to modernize how prescriptions are sent in Canada. They promised that PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs.

This was back in 2016, the Liberal-made problem. They announced a $40-million budget. Ten years later—this is what this kind of government will do now—the cost of PrescribeIT has exploded to over $300 million. What did Canadians get for that $300 million? Well, that is the $300-million question.

As of today—and this is what this big software program was supposed to replace—doctors are still faxing prescriptions, and less than 5% of those prescriptions are going through the PrescribeIT program. This is the kind of track record the Liberal government has when it comes to developing software. Why on earth...? I definitely agree that we need this AI and we need this study, but we have to learn from our past problems and the past issues that the Liberal government has created. For the life of me, I would think that sitting as an MP, as you go back out into your ridings, I don't know how you look at anyone as you stand on their doorsteps and say, “Hey, $300 million, yes, we blew through it, but we want some more.” I don't know how you guys would stand there and defend that conversation.

That's why I totally support the amendments, and I look forward to getting this cleared up and listening to the next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We will go to Dr. Strauss.

Please go ahead.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry that this is necessary. I usually say that it's a great pleasure to address the committee, especially on a subamendment as important as my colleague Mr. Mazier's. Unfortunately, this shouldn't be necessary.

While I'm speaking, I'll begin by extending my apologies to the witnesses who are waiting to deliver their important testimony. I want to inform those witnesses out of courtesy that this should not be necessary at all. This past summer, this committee—before you joined, Chair—had a meeting of the vice-chairs to decide what would be studied when. I understand that I'm not a vice-chair, but I understand that it was a perfectly collegial group decision that was made to do our study on immigration policy, the Bloc study on antimicrobial resistance and then the present Liberal study on pharmaceutical sovereignty.

We worked really well on behalf of Canadians as a team. One thing that we did not do was spring a debate and a motion on a study that we wanted while there were witnesses waiting to testify. This part is really disappointing. I feel terrible that I'm taking up those witnesses' time, but it's because of this very aggressive manoeuvre that the Liberals are undertaking presently.

That raises the question of why. Why would they do this very aggressive manoeuvre instead of having a vice-chairs' meeting collegially, as they have shown themselves capable of doing in the past? I think it's clear that this is because they do not want to have the meeting that Mr. Mazier has introduced in his subamendment to have the Minister of Health and Mr. Green come to speak to this committee about PrescribeIT. Both testimonies are very important.

I would draw the committee's attention to The Globe and Mail. For the last two weeks, it has run multiple stories, not just on PrescribeIT and the debacle that it is but on this committee's work pertaining to PrescribeIT. The committee has done important work on this boondoggle that, for one thing, has changed the direction of Canada Health Infoway.

I frankly do not believe the board chair's testimony that this committee questioned Mr. Green and he coincidentally happened to be fired a week later. Part of why I don't believe it is that the Minister of Health said in question period today that she found his behaviour totally unacceptable. Obviously, Canadians, journalists and the national paper of record, The Globe and Mail, are interested in hearing testimony from both of these individuals.

Addressing myself through you, Chair, to the witnesses who are waiting, I'm sorry this is what it has come to. The Liberals invited you here to give your testimony on their own study, and now they're obstructing the testimony of their own witnesses on their own study in order to protect the Minister of Health from having to answer further questions about precisely what transpired with respect to Mr. Green and the board of Canada Health Infoway.

In one of those Globe and Mail—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

On a point of order, I was just wondering. This seems to be.... I thought that we'd have a little more agreement around the table with the amendments, but you wanted to get on with the AI study, continue on with your own study. That's what I find more troubling.

I was wondering how many resources we had left for this evening as we get into this. Could you please ask the clerk, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We will do that, but right now, I will give the floor to Dr. Strauss to continue. In the meantime, we'll find that out.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'll finish my comment.

In one of those Globe and Mail articles, the Minister of Health was quoted as saying that she wants to “move forward” and not talk about the misbehaviour of Canada Health Infoway and its now-dismissed CEO, but while moving forward, she's giving that same organization, which is terribly badly run, terribly poorly governed.... They needed this committee to explain to them that their CEO was badly behaved before they took any action against him. She says she's moving forward, but she's giving that same organization another $50 million, and this is a pressing concern.

As I've explained to this committee, $50 million can buy a lot of health care and do a lot of good in this country, and it shouldn't be going to Canada Health Infoway. We need to stop that urgently, before she disburses it. She needs to come and explain why on earth she would do that. When she comes, I think Canadians should be able to see what occurs.

That's why I'd like to move the following subamendment to Mr. Mazier's amendment.

After “appears for two hours on PrescribeIT” in Mr. Mazier's amendment, I would like to add: “and, given that the parliamentary secretary for health moved a motion on April 28, 2026, to turn off the health committee cameras and hide the PrescribeIT hearings from Canadians with no rationale ever given to the media or the public, that the committee meeting be held in public, with the cameras, to ensure transparency”, and then we'd continue with the amendment from that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We are on the subamendment. We have Mr. Bailey, Madam Konanz and Mr. Mazier, in that sequence. We then have Dr. Strauss.

Now we are on the subamendment. I already gave you the speakers list. I'll give the floor to Mr. Bailey.

Please go ahead.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have to stress again how, in my mail, this unlocking connected care—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Bailey, if you can focus on the subamendment, I would really appreciate it.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, and this pertains to exactly that.

Canada Health Infoway just sent out a booklet on how we're going to be unlocking connected care to all the provinces in Canada. This is an IT program, and I am concerned that we have not even addressed what Canada Health Infoway did in the last scandal. They are going to be involved in this new bill, Bill S-5, from the Senate, which this committee is going to be learning more about.

Again, in your mailbox, you're going to see “unlocking connected care”. It lists the four organizations involved. The last one is Canada Health Infoway. I want to know that these answers.... I think Mr. Green needs to come and answer questions on why PrescribeIT failed, before we move into the next scandal and get provinces involved.

I have mentioned this on numerous occasions in this committee. I don't understand why they're saying “connected care”, because “Connect Care” is a trademarked name for Alberta; it is an American trademark, and already I see that we have Canada Health Infoway involved with this new bill, Bill S-5. I really feel that we need to look at this and finish this study that we've started. We need Mr. Green here to answer questions so that we know we can trust Canada Health Infoway in the future.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

We will go to Madam Konanz for her turn.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I must say that at first I didn't think this subamendment would be necessary after everything that has happened in the last week. I think there are a lot of embarrassed MPs at this table right now who decided last week to force this committee behind closed doors. Now, we have media outlets like The Globe and Mail, the CBC—I could go on and on—that are more worried about how it is possible that MPs around this table could shut out news from Canadians for 30 years. For 30 years, they will not know what happened in those meetings last week.

I thought, why would we need this subamendment? Why would we need it? There's no way that the MPs around this table would want to do that again after the embarrassment. They had to answer to their constituents. It's very difficult, I'm sure. There must have been an incredible number of emails and phone calls to their offices and their personal phones.

I'm sure they wouldn't want to go through that embarrassment again. Canadians want to trust us and want transparency, and all of us around this table know that, but I see now that just in case there is any chance that an MP sitting at this table—a Liberal MP in particular—might want to hide more news for 30 years, this amendment is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Konanz.

Mr. Mazier, it's your turn. Please go ahead.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just follow up again on both my colleagues' great remarks, which I thank them very much for, on this subamendment.

I actually have to say that I was probably one of the more shocked people when Ms. Chi moved to shut off the cameras when we had just simply started an idea and thought process, a discussion around getting the Auditor General to analyze where the $300 million went. The part that really bothers me as a member of Parliament representing taxpayers is that, in the meeting before that, this whole committee was very frustrated with those three individuals who came in, especially with Michael Green, the CEO. Even the chair got into it. They would not answer the questions. Mr. Green wouldn't even admit how much his salary was—how much he was getting paid. It turns out that it was $900,000. The CEO of a non-profit organization paid by the Liberal government is being paid $900,000, with a maximum benefit bonus—because he did such a great job, according to why he would get a maximum bonus—of $215,000. Can you imagine that?

We're all sitting around here, and we have to debate whether we're going to talk about this in public. Come on, you guys. This is a pretty easy discussion to have. We can all remove ourselves from the situation. It was bad. Someone got away really rich with a lot of money; $300 million was blown out of here. You guys don't want to talk about it. For some unknown reason, there are a bunch of barriers to that information.

As Ms. Konanz and Mr. Bailey have remarked, people are mad. They're more frustrated with the veil that came down when the cameras got shut off. Also, 30 years.... How is that democracy? Why are Liberal MPs supporting this? Honestly, I don't understand that.

You can kind of comment, read your phones and do whatever you want, but I just don't know why you wouldn't get on with the conversation and let them clear the air. Maybe there's nothing wrong here. However, sure enough, where there's smoke, there's fire. You know how that works.

With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, for my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Are there any more speakers on the subamendment? If not, I will ask the clerk to take the vote, please, on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We are back to the amendment. I have two speakers on the list, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas and Madam Sidhu.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee meeting is unique, but please allow me to share my perspective anyway.

Today, on May 7, 2026, we're carrying out a study on pharmaceutical sovereignty. The government asked for this study. It seemed to be a priority. I even remember the government members telling us that we absolutely had to begin this study.

As we reach the end of this study, what happens? The government members are trying to shift the focus to something else. A motion is being introduced, but not just any motion. The motion dates back to September. If I do some simple math, it seems that the period from September to May is eight months. So the government is telling us that this motion was in a drawer and that it mattered so much that we need to look at it again eight months later. Here we have the Liberal spectacle that the government is treating us to today.

What's the strategy behind all this? I'll explain it to the people tuning in, meaning the honest taxpayers. The government obviously didn't want to continue the study on pharmaceutical sovereignty, even though it considered this matter a priority. It had something to hide. After all, when something matters, you keep at it. You don't just pull a motion out of a drawer—a motion that has been sitting there for eight months—and say that you might want to move it after all.

I wanted to make this clear to the people tuning in. We have a secretive government that governs, shall we say, in a rather unpredictable or even haphazard manner.

The government members introduced this motion on September 19, 2025, but didn't consider it important enough to pass earlier. I would like to point out that eight months have gone by. They're bringing this forward today. I would personally like to understand why. I'll let them speak shortly so that they can explain to us why, today—even as we're working on their own study—they decided to reconsider this motion.

I suspect that they're trying to cover up or hide things to some extent. Obviously, things have been heating up on the government side in recent days, specifically within the health committee. We have the new scandal involving the PrescribeIT program. Whether we like it or not, the program cost us $300 million. We never got our money's worth, and the program is set to end in late May.

I also found something quite bizarre, I must say. I would like to bring it up so that the people paying close attention to us can understand the logical progression of the story. It's May 7. On May 5, during a committee meeting, we asked the Minister of Health to come meet with us to discuss the PrescribeIT fiasco. The government told us that she was too busy and that she couldn't come. Yesterday, on May 6, we asked the minister questions in the House of Commons. She responded that she personally had no problem coming to meet with us in the committee.

There seems to be an inconsistency. The government members said in the committee that the minister can't attend. Yet the next day—not 32 days later—she said the exact opposite of what her team members claimed. Someone, somewhere, is lying. Either they aren't communicating with each other, or they don't understand each other, or they aren't on the same page. It's quite striking to see people say that the minister can't attend, only for her to contradict her colleagues the next day. I feel a bit embarrassed for them. They may need to improve their communication.

If the minister wants to come, she must come. We mustn't stop her. I think that this is important. She told us herself that she had no problem coming. I thought that this was good, actually. The minister said that she had already appeared before the committee five times. This shows that there are issues. Besides, if she has already appeared five times before, she won't have any problem coming a sixth time.

I hope that my colleagues who are committee members or who occasionally fill in for them—since this seems to be happening more and more often, although everyone is welcome in this committee—will ensure that we invite the minister to shed light on the new scandal involving the PrescribeIT program.

I'm really looking forward to hearing my colleagues' explanations regarding my question of the day. Why was this motion introduced? What was the urgency? I can say that the schedule was already quite full for the coming weeks, or even almost until the end of the parliamentary proceedings. Will my colleagues be able to respond and shed some light on this matter? I'm really looking forward to hearing from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

One thing I want to make clear to the honourable members is that passing this motion does not amend the order of the business we are going in. I want to make sure that that is the understanding.

Now I'm going to the speaking list. Next is Ms. Sidhu, and then we have Dr. Strauss and Madam Konanz.

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.