Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Just a minute, please. I have to suspend for one more minute until Mr. Mantle receives it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Members are ready. It is my understanding that every honourable member has a copy of the subamendment in both official languages. We are debating Dr. Strauss's subamendment. Are there any speakers?
Mr. Mantle, please go ahead.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for welcoming me to the committee.
I'm new to the health committee, although I've known Dr. Strauss for some time now, as well as Dr. Jaczek. It's nice to see you here. We share a border in York region. I know she's a great doctor. I have great respect for her and her work in Ontario and in our community. We share Oakridge health network, so I know she's passionate about that.
I am going to recap where we are so I understand what we're discussing. As I understand it, as a new member at the table, there's a motion to conduct a study on HIV in Mr. Mazier's part of Canada, an amendment to bring the health minister in to discuss that outbreak in Mr. Mazier's area, and Mr. Strauss has moved a subamendment to expand the contours and put some guardrails around the discussion for the minister, if she were to attend, which would be to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of the health department.
Do I have that right, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Excellent.
When I entered the committee room, Mr. Chair, I heard some pretty inflammatory language from the other side, from Mr. Eyolfson, to the effect that people were going to die if the committee did not undertake this emergency study of HIV. I can't comment on why he might have said that, although I would observe that the committee has no impact on the direct health care provided to Canadians. Of course, that's a provincial responsibility, number one, jurisdictionally, as he would know, although significant funding comes from the federal government.
To suggest and make a strong claim that Canadians will die from HIV if this committee doesn't do some research and hear from some witnesses is a little bit beyond the facts. I'll put it that way.
That's not to say that HIV and a study like that is not important; of course it is. I think all members around this table.... I know the members on our side, especially, are concerned about the health care of Canadians, which we know is in a pretty sorry state in certain parts of the country. I had a family member who was at a hospital just this past week and waited eight hours to get into an emergency room, so there are certainly emergencies across the country. HIV is an important one, and I think we would be amenable to studying that, but I think that's beyond the point.
The reality is this motion was put forward because the government would prefer to talk about anything other than PrescribeIT, which has dominated—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Mr. Mantle, can you please focus your comments? You weren't here, so I would especially give you the time. If we can focus on HIV, I would love to keep this committee meeting in order so there are no cross-exchanges.
The floor is yours.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Absolutely, Chair, and you will be the arbiter of that, as is your right.
I believe the subamendment, however, is to discuss health-related funding and programs under the purview of the Department of Health. Would PrescribeIT not be one of those health-related programs that's under the purview of the minister? Is that not directly relevant to this subamendment? It is a topic that the minister may be questioned about at committee.
Am I correct on that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'm not going to make the decision. It's up to you. You can continue. I gave you the floor.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
My understanding is that PrescribeIT is a health-related program that would be under the purview of the minister, so that would be available for discussion should the government decide to agree to this subamendment to the amendment to the motion.
As we know, the government has a majority on this committee, a recent majority, which it clearly is using to avoid discussion of PrescribeIT. I understand why. It's a fiasco, a debacle. There are no two ways about it. Three hundred million dollars were spent on a program that produced no measurable or tangible results for Canadians.
We understand that governments make mistakes and that not all programs are successful, but one of the actual jobs of parliamentary committees is to provide oversight and accountability of government, especially on spending. I make that point because, in our system of government, over 1,000 years of constitutional history, it has always been Parliament that can tax and spend money. Since the great charter in 1215 on the fields of Runnymede, that has been our tradition, so it is incumbent upon this committee, whose mandate is health-related programs, to investigate when the government falls short. I think it's fair, if the minister were to come on this subamendment to the amendment to the motion, that she could be questioned on that. It's a topic of public discourse.
As I said, I understand why the government may not want to discuss it, but I think we should discuss it. We should, as a committee, review that so that we can understand what happened, what went wrong and what could be improved upon, because, yes, there's blame to go around, for sure. Ultimately, we want to understand what happened so that we don't repeat mistakes that were made in the past with these programs.
Clearly, there has been at least some measure of accountability. Whether it's accountability or scapegoating, I'm not sure yet. We'll have to get to the bottom of that with the former CEO, who was unceremoniously dumped from his position after his testimony at this committee, which was less than ideal. I haven't reviewed it all myself, but I saw some of it, so I understand why he was quite quickly removed from his position.
Beyond that, the minister, who is responsible for that position, who herself admitted that she was involved in removing him so quickly, should be here to take responsibility herself.
Discussing health-related funding and programs would provide us with the ability to ask her those questions, even if it is in the context of a study and a motion on HIV. I know for sure that this side is interested in addressing that exigent topic, but we've been put down this path because of the obfuscation of the other side, which doesn't want to talk about PrescribeIT. If the other side would agree to discuss this in a more good-faith manner, bring in the minister on that specific topic and finish the already started review of PrescribeIT, then we could expeditiously, I'm sure, move on to the topic that Dr. Eyolfson would like us to discuss, which is, of course, important too.
I take a bit of umbrage to his comments that this must be the priority or people will die. This committee deals with many important topics that affect people's health, and I certainly wouldn't take the position that some people's health is more of a priority than others. If he wants to clarify his earlier comments, I'd invite him to do that. Perhaps he could also clarify his comments that he's made on social media, which have caused some of the concern at this table. I think that is why we are using our ability to push the government to do what it knows is right, which is to bring the minister here to face some accountability before this committee and before Canadians.
I don't understand why they are so resistant to that. We should have a system of ministerial responsibility. That is another long-standing tradition of our parliamentary system that seems to have gone by the wayside in the last 10 years.
No matter how big the scandal, no matter how problematic the minister, no one ever resigns and no one ever takes responsibility until they either are pushed out because of public pressure or are unable to complete their duties. It seems to me that there are a few on the front bench that might fit that, but we're concerned here with the Minister of Health.
We are unfortunately put in this position to be discussing the motion, an amendment and a subamendment solely and only because the government refuses to bring the former CEO of PrescribeIT to give evidence to this committee.
Now, why would they want to avoid bringing the former CEO of PrescribeIT to this committee? Well, I think they would want to prevent that for a few reasons. They fired him. They fired him, so whatever loyalty or whatever hesitation he might have in providing a full testimony—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Again, Mr. Mantle, if you could focus on the minister and the minister's mandate, I would let you speak.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
The minister's mandate is of course to exercise accountability over her office. She seems to have done that by firing the previous CEO of PrescribeIT. To understand her mandate and the decisions she made, we want to hear, from the individual she fired, the reasons for being fired and what context he could provide to the running of a program directly under the minister's purview. I think discussing having him here is directly within her purview—
Liberal
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
If you would entertain a further subamendment, then I would certainly be willing to move one.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Let me get the decision on the subamendment first. If you want to make a subamendment afterwards, if the decision is not made in the way that you want it, we can always discuss. Basically, there is no order or suggestion for the chair here, right?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
No. Right now, if you are not making any amendments or any friendly amendments, if you are done, I'll go to the next speaker.
Conservative
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I take your comment. We can continue debating this subamendment. If that is not agreed to by the committee, then I may decide to move another one. Is that fair?
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you.
I'll just wrap up my comments by saying that I've been here for only a year, but it's clear to me that with the government's new majority, they are using it to block, obfuscate and avoid accountability. That's why we're having this debate. I encourage the members opposite to work more co-operatively with the opposition, which the Prime Minister promised he would do despite having a majority, and we can only take him at his word.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
