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
We are on the motion about an AI study, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It's better that you wrap up with the preamble, if you need to, and just come back to the motion that we are on, please.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, when I had the floor, I didn't finish my sentence, and then he—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It's okay. If he brings in the matter of privilege and it is directly related to your motion, then I will entertain it. Right now, I'm not entertaining it, because the preamble he has put together is not acceptable. If he does not directly get to the motion right now, then I'm going to call this out of order and I'm going back to Ms. Sidhu.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
We're clear, Chair, that I am speaking to my amendment to her motion. We're clear about that, so I'm going to continue.
A witness appeared before this committee. He was asked a direct question about his salary, given that it's funded by Canadian taxpayers, and, rather than answer the question, he told the members of Parliament that the information was already public. It was not. This document did not exist until after his testimony.
This is not a matter of interpretation. It is clear that a witness told this committee a falsehood in order to avoid disclosing how much taxpayer money he was paid to oversee a $300-million program that failed. Only later was it reported that his salary was nearly $900,000 that year, which includes a maximum performance award of over $215,000.
I would also draw the committee's attention to what happened after Michael Green refused to disclose his compensation. On April 21, this committee adopted a unanimous consent motion summonsing Mr. Green to reappear for two hours. Eight days later, on April 29, the board of Canada Health Infoway suddenly dismissed Mr. Green, effective immediately. This committee was denied the opportunity to question him further on his misleading testimony and on the $300 million in taxpayer funds he oversaw. The timing of his dismissal raises serious questions about whether this committee's ability to recall and examine a key witness was deliberately obstructed.
I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. Paragraph 3.98 states that committees have reported to the House on “cases of witnesses lying to a committee”. Chapter 3 further states, “If a committee determines that a witness has given untruthful testimony, it may report the matter to the House.” The House alone decides whether contempt has occurred. The House has acted on this authority before, finding George Radwanski in 2003 and RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George in 2008 in contempt for providing misleading testimony to committee.
Witnesses who appear before this committee are obligated to answer questions truthfully and completely. Mr. Green did neither. Parliament's ability to hold the government to account depends on witnesses telling the truth. If witnesses can appear before this committee, make false claims to avoid scrutiny and face no consequences, then Parliamentary accountability means nothing. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that Michael Green's testimony on April 21, 2026, regarding the public availability of his compensation constituted misleading the Standing Committee on Health and is a breach of privilege.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I listened to the question of privilege brought forward. My decision is that it is not in order, so I'm going to go back to Ms. Sidhu.
If you want to challenge the chair, then challenge the chair. I just don't want everybody to grab the mic and start speaking, only one person.
Raise your hand, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, if you want to speak. You can challenge the Chair.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, at the last meeting, you were unable to make an immediate ruling regarding the admissibility of the question of privilege. Today, you're saying that you can—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I asked you a question. Do you want to challenge the chair or entertain the decision?
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I find it odd that—
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't understand why you're cutting me off me when I speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'm not cutting you off; I'm just asking if you are challenging the chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I asked you a question about the admissibility of the question of privilege. I want you to explain why you can make a ruling on the spot today, when you couldn't do so at the last committee meeting. That's my question for you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
That is at my discretion. I as chair can do that, and I have done that.
Now, I'm going to move on to Mr. Mazier.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
I think you need to explain to the committee why this is not in order. It is in order. You referred it to the clerk. He was allowed to speak. Now you can do what you want, but you've heard the speech from Mr. Bailey, so it is in order. I guess I argue that.
What you do with the decision is your choice, Chair. It's not so much that it is not in order, but you've heard the the claim, so now what are you going to do with that? It is definitely in order. It's in order, because it was related to the amendment that was on the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Mr. Mazier, time and time again, I'm telling you, if I have enough evidence of what we are saying—whether we are misleading or whether someone is falsely making statements here—then one of the members can take this to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Speaker can do that.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
What you're saying, then, is that you don't find it a matter of privilege.