Mr. Speaker, last June, I asked the Minister of Health to explain why, in the last session of Parliament, she asked the Senate to review the 2004 accord when the Senate is an undemocratic institution that is not accountable to anyone. She could have asked the Standing Committee on Health, which is made up of elected members of Parliament who are accountable to Canadians, to conduct the review. The committee is an far more democratic institution and is committed to analyzing the investment of public funds.
Canadians have a right to know where their money is going, what is being done with it, if it is being used wisely and whether their investments are being monitored. The federal government has a duty to enforce the Canada Health Act, which includes the following five principles: accessibility, universality, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness.
The provinces had to meet targets and achieve results in order to respect the agreement between them and the federal government, so that the federal government would continue to invest 6%, as agreed to by the Minister of Health.
The targets were, for example, to reduce wait times in the emergency rooms, to increase the number of professional staff, doctors and nurses, and to improve home care. There was also the issue of providing more care in the north and improving public health management.
Such were the targets and there were 67 to 70 measurable indicators. Some eight years later, there is still no news on what has happened since 2004. As we prepare the new 2014 accord, we might want to know what improvements there have been, if any, and in what areas of health we have to increase our efforts.
Why did the Minister of Health not show more leadership? It was her decision to choose who would review this accord. Why did she choose the Senate? What does the government have to hide?
This totally lacks transparency, since we have no idea or indication what is being discussed. We have no access to the witnesses and experts who could provide us with information, as this belongs to the Senate.
Again, why was there no leadership on this issue and why was the mandate not given to a democratic institution, to the members of Parliament elected by the public?