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
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to be clear that I moved this motion in my time, when I was questioning the witnesses.
I put this motion on the table six months ago. I want to remind the opposition members that I talked to Mr. Mazier about my AI motion, but I didn't move it at that time. I moved this motion in my time, and I put it in the queue. I'm not dictating my motion.... It's just for future study.
That is all I want to say.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you.
We are now back to the amendment to the effect that we'll have Michael Green and the health minister come before engaging in this AI study.
I have some things to say about this AI study in general. If we're debating which to do first, it's important to have it on the record that digitization in health care and artificial intelligence in health care are already here and already happening. I'm not aware of any clinician, any software developer or anyone in the AI space who's sitting around hoping that the parliamentary health committee will advise them on how to do that.
I had a visit with my family doctor this past summer. I was very ill. She asked if it was okay if she used an AI scribe or if AI listened in on what we were doing. I said I was very interested to see that. In addition to transcribing, saving that practitioner a whole bunch of time, it also made a treatment recommendation that was very appropriate for the problem I had.
It's already here. It's already happening. I don't think any of the AI company founders—in my personal network there's somebody from the region of Waterloo— are waiting for this committee to advise them on how to do that better, whereas this government, the Liberal government currently proposing to study health care and AI, is the same one that promised to axe the fax in 2017.
Jane Philpott was the minister of health. She promised to axe the fax. She spent $300 million on it. How can a government that failed in its three-word, verb-the-noun slogan to axe the fax, now turn around after $300 million and say, “We're no longer interested in our failed attempt to axe the fax. We want to move on to lecturing family doctors, AI founders and tech entrepreneurs into how to integrate health care and artificial intelligence”?
On its merit, as a health care provider, I can say that I am not interested in doing this study. I am sorry to have to disagree with my colleague, Mr. Mazier, but out of collegiality.... I guess they do have a majority now, which they got by hook or by crook. They have that now. They can ram this study down our throats, which, as a clinician, as somebody who knows a lot of tech entrepreneurs, I do not want, but the very least, can we deal with the fax machine issue first? Before we have godlike superintelligence, can we just deal with what they promised? Can we deal with the $50 million that the health minister is putting into this pivot strategy to give to Canada Health Infoway, perhaps to fund their next CEO's lavish lifestyle? That is my position on that.
The last thing I want to say is that liberalism.... Philosophically, I am a liberal, in the sense of a classical liberal who believes in openness. I guess I'm still shocked that they just voted down the idea of having the committee meeting where we talk to their health minister. They don't want to do this hypothetical meeting that they're not even wanting to allow us to have. They just voted down having that hypothetical meeting out in the open for Canadians to see, and they did that without....
Each of us here spoke in favour of that motion. We all think it's important that this committee be in public, unless we're dealing with a national security matter, which we have done once in the past, and you didn't hear any complaints from us when that, very appropriately, went in camera, but how on earth is the health minister's talking about blowing $300 million a national security concern? Why would they not agree to have a hypothetical meeting out in the open?
We each spoke to why we think it's important for that to be out in the open, but none of them even spoke to that motion, which was extremely disappointing. I'm going to conclude my comments in a second, but if we return to this subject—because I have another motion to move, Chair, that I think will be dilatory—I hope that, even though we've already debated the subamendment, some of them would have the grace and the courage to explain why they voted down having a hypothetical meeting with cameras on for the Canadian public to see. There's a lot of investment that went into the AV equipment in this room so that Canadians could be present and could watch what their Parliament does. To vote down the idea that we turn on the cameras that we all paid to have here was shocking, and I hope they'll speak to it.
Unfortunately, though, they won't be able to speak to it immediately, because I have a dilatory motion, which is that, given that the Liberal witnesses are here to speak on the Liberal study on the all-encompassing and extremely important matter of pharmaceutical sovereignty, we now proceed to hear from the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Is there unanimous will to proceed to the witnesses?
How about if I suspend for a minute so you can make that decision quickly? You have one minute. That's it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to see if the committee gives its unanimous consent to go back to the business of hearing from the witnesses.
There is not.
Madam Clerk, please take the vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We are back to the amendment now.
I have Madam Konanz and then Dr. Strauss.
Madam Konanz, please go ahead.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
To go back to the amendment, it's obvious that Michael Green is ground zero. He is ground zero.
Oh, am I allowed to use “ground zero” in a meeting?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
First of all, you have to raise the motion on your turn, not on a point of order. Madam Konanz has the floor.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
After everything that's happened today, it is obvious that Michael Green is ground zero for this scandal of PrescribeIT—
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. It's on the amended motion, just for a point of clarification.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'll clarify for all the members that we are working on the amendment right now.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
On the amended motion, do we need a vote? That's what I wanted to know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
First, if there are members on the list who want to speak to the amendment, I cannot call the vote until a member who has the floor brings the motion to a vote. Right now, your turn is gone. The floor is with Madam Konanz and then Mr. Strauss. If you want to bring that motion, you can put yourself on the speaking list.
Are you on the speaking list or not? No. Okay, thank you.
Madam Konanz has the floor.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you, Chair.
It is obvious, after listening to the members sitting across from us at this table, that Michael Green is ground zero for this scandal.
It is also obvious that he actually might want to come here. He may be asking to come here, in fact, because maybe there are things that he needs to expose. It is obvious that there are people sitting at this table who don't want that exposed. It is their duty to the Canadian people to let Michael Green, former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, come in, speak and tell the truth. Allow him to come in and tell the truth about what happened in this scandal. How did this happen?
I would like to give him the opportunity to have a voice. It is our responsibility to allow Michael Green to come to this committee, use his voice and tell the truth about what he knows about what has happened in the last 10 years with this scandal.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to raise, I think it has to be said again.... I imagine the witnesses are still online.
The witnesses were invited here by the Liberals, who just voted against hearing from the witnesses. I'm cringing. I'm scandalized. It hurt to watch.
I want to extend to each of those witnesses.... You can find my parliamentary email if you google “Matt Strauss MP.” I would like to hear from each of you what you had to say today.
It's as though you've been invited for dinner and then told there's no dinner. That was hard to watch. I'm really sorry that that happened to each of them.
With that, Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege on a related matter. Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of Health was asked about the dismissal of Michael Green, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. The minister stated, “I spoke to the board of directors, and they took the necessary steps.” The minister told the House of Commons that she personally intervened with Infoway's board and that Mr. Green's firing was the result of that intervention.
On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, this committee heard directly from Dr. Peter Vaughan, the chair of Canada Health Infoway's board of directors. Dr. Vaughan was asked whether the current federal health minister had ever personally raised concerns with him or the board about the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT. Dr. Vaughan's answer was clear. He said no. In fact, he stated, “The answer is no.”
These statements cannot both be true. Either the Minister of Health told the House of Commons yesterday that she had spoken to the board when she had not, or the chair of Canada Health Infoway told this committee on Tuesday that the minister had never raised concerns when she had.
The House of Commons and its committees depend entirely on receiving truthful information from ministers and witnesses. When contradictory statements are made to the House and to a committee within days of each other, members of Parliament cannot do their job, and Canadians cannot get the truth.
I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, chapter 3, which confirms that the “provision of deliberately misleading information to the House” by a minister has frequently been raised as a matter of privilege. It also sets out a three-part test. The statement must have been misleading, the person must have known it was incorrect, and they must have intended to mislead.
These two statements—the minister's claim that she had spoken to the board and the chair's testimony that she had not—cannot both be true. At least one of them was knowingly false. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that the testimony of Dr. Peter Vaughan before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday and the statements of the Minister of Health in the House of Commons yesterday are directly contradictory, that Parliament has been misled, and that this matter constitutes a breach of privilege.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
I'm going to section 20.113 of Procedure and Practice. It reads:
The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power. If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege in connection with the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair allows the member to explain the situation. As the Chair has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred, their role in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate.
I'm going to just take a minute here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
If you want me to read the whole section, I can. It reads:
If the Chair is of the opinion that the member’s intervention is not related to privilege, the Chair will rule accordingly, giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a member disagree with the Chair’s decision, the member can appeal the decision. The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair’s decision.
Before I take a decision, I need to have it in writing, so that I can analyze it and then make a decision.
Dr. Strauss, I will give you the opportunity to give it to me in writing, so that I can see it and analyze it.
In the meantime, I'm going to suspend the meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
We're back.
Thank you very much, honourable members.
I have a question of privilege on the floor right now. I am not able to make a decision on this immediately. I need a bit more time. I don't want this to die either. To do that, I have to suspend the meeting. We will come back to this.
A voice
Call them from the fourth floor. Bring the whip's office down here and talk to them. We already have a ruling from them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It's already been two hours. I'm going to suspend the meeting and come back to this next time.
[The meeting was suspended at 5:39 p.m., Thursday, May 7]
[The meeting resumed at 3:43 p.m., Tuesday, May 26]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to part two of meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, even though we are all here in person today.
I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. Only one person at a time should speak, to make sure that the health and well-being of the interpreters and others are considered.
Chris Bittle, I'm happy to welcome you. You are becoming a regular contributor to this committee. You're welcome.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I hope that isn't formal. This is a part-time gig.
I appreciate everyone for being here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.
The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday, May 7, 2026, after a question of privilege was raised by Dr. Strauss. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting, and I will render my decision.
Madam Sidhu, do you want to say something before I give my—
Liberal