Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jacques Ramsay

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-10-05

247 words · 15 sentences · 17 clauses

Replying to Matt Strauss (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be back again for the late show. I shared the topic of my question with my colleague on this side. Questions regarding PrescribeIT are consistently not being answered in question period, so that is why we are here. I am not happy to be here this late. I imagine the parliamentary secretary across the way is also not happy. We could put an end to this if he would just answer the questions tonight. To put this into perspective for Canadians, $300 million was blown on a piece of software that did not work. That is $50 million more than the Liberals spent on the sponsorship scandal that brought down the Paul Martin government. I happened to bump into a popular television personality on Sparks Street today, and I mentioned to him that I was going to come do the late show about the PrescribeIT scandal. He asked, “What’s that?” I asked, “You go on CBC frequently and talk about politics, and you haven’t heard of this $300-million scandal?” Do they know, on the other side of the House, how many nurses $300 million could hire? Do they know how many hospital beds could be constructed with $300 million? When a financial catastrophe such as this happens, $300 million is how much money 300 Canadians who worked their whole life long for a paycheque would be lucky to see over the course of their whole life. The Liberals wasted the life’s work of 300 Canadians on something that did not work at all. Why are they not interested in getting to the bottom of this with us? My question in question period was very simple. Michael Green was getting $1 million a year to do nothing, as far as those of us on the health committee could tell. He got fired. The Minister of Health previously, in question period, told me that he got fired after she spoke with the board, but the chairman of the board, Dr. Peter Vaughan, told the health committee that the Minister of Health had never spoken to the board, so what the heck happened? This is important. The member opposite talked about accountability. Who is accountable? Is the Minister of Health the person who fires the CEO when he wastes a bunch of money, or is she not? The people who sent us here to the chamber just want to know what happened with the money. Finding out who was in charge of firing the CEO is step number one. It could be that this was all a miscommunication. It could be that the Minister of Health told her representative, Jocelyne Voisin, to fire Michael Green, and then that Jocelyne Voisin went to the board and did not tell Peter Vaughan that why she wanted to fire Michael Green was that the health minister told her to. It could be that Peter Vaughan was just left out of the loop, but if that is the case, let us get to the bottom of it. If that is the case, why would the health minister not say that this is what happened? Why would the Liberals on the health committee go to all the lengths they have gone to in order to shut down our investigation? He spoke at length about the third party investigation they are paying for. Is it independent? We have an independent Auditor General. The independent Auditor General was asked to look into this, but because the Liberals hustled in and got a third party to look into it before them, they have now brushed the Auditor General aside. Why are they not answering the questions of members of Parliament? Why are they not allowing the Auditor General to do their work? Are they not ashamed to be covering up a scandal larger than the sponsorship scandal? Is this how the member opposite wants to spend his parliamentary career: coming here late at night to continue to obfuscate the questions we ask that are reasonable and that our constituents, every Canadian taxpayer, wants to and deserves to hear the answer to? Did the health minister, or did she not, fire Michael Green through her representative on the board?”

Statement grade

B–

71 / 100, held down by Relevance

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Procedure 6%Claims 57%Reasoning 8%Promise 29%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsfirst, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the member opposite.Procedure Claims · 142 wordsHe said that the program did not work. That is not entirely accurate. In fact, the program has been relaunched.¹ An agreement has been signed with at least one province to date.² In fact, what was found was that the program did not have the full support of the medical community, ³which is why it was discontinued. That said, it does not necessarily mean that the program was not working. Second, with regard to what happened in terms of governance, I will reiterate what the minister has already said, which is that there were shortcomings. That is why she launched an independent review of the organizational structure and mandate of Canada Health Infoway.⁴ This approach was welcomed by the Auditor General, who herself concluded that there was no need for her to conduct her own investigation.⁵ She was satisfied with this approach. Reasoning · 19 wordsGiven that the Auditor General was satisfied, I think we should wait to see the findings of this review. Promise · 72 wordsThe government has already indicated that it will take note of them and ensure that the Canada Health Infoway program becomes operational again.Vague promise For now, no supplementary budget has been allocated because we take the management of public funds seriously.⁶ No further payments will be made until we receive the findings and an assurance that the money invested in Canada Health Infoway is meeting the needs of the medical community and Canadians.⁷Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 of 18 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “first, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the member opposite.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 41

16 of 18 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the question on notice, as the member's speech raises it.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “He said that the program did not work.”It recounts the member’s claim about the program, not the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “That is not entirely accurate.”It disputes the member’s characterization of the program, not who fired the CEO.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “In fact, the program has been relaunched.”It is about the program’s relaunch, not the firing question asked.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “An agreement has been signed with at least one province to date.”It cites a provincial agreement on the program, not the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “In fact, what was found was that the program did not have the full support of the medical community,”It gives a finding about medical community support, not who made the firing decision.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “which is why it was discontinued.”It explains the discontinuation of the program, not the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “That said, it does not necessarily mean that the program was not working.”It discusses whether the program was working, not who fired the CEO.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Second, with regard to what happened in terms of governance, I will reiterate what the minister has already said,”It turns to governance shortcomings but does not say who fired the CEO.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “which is that there were shortcomings.”It acknowledges shortcomings generally without answering the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “That is why she launched an independent review of the organizational structure and mandate of Canada Health Infoway.”It describes the review launched, not the firing decision asked about.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “This approach was welcomed by the Auditor General, who herself concluded that there was no need for her to conduct her own investigation.”It is about the Auditor General’s view of the review, not the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “She was satisfied with this approach.”It restates the Auditor General’s satisfaction, not who fired the CEO.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Given that the Auditor General was satisfied, I think we should wait to see the findings of this review.”It urges waiting for the review’s findings rather than answering the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “The government has already indicated that it will take note of them and ensure that the Canada Health Infoway program becomes operational again.”It is about the government’s plans for the program, not the firing decision.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “For now, no supplementary budget has been allocated because we take the management of public funds seriously.”It is about supplementary funding and fiscal management, not the firing question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “No further payments will be made until we receive the findings and an assurance that the money invested in Canada Health Infoway is meeting the needs of the medical community and Canadians.”It is about future payments pending the review, not who fired the CEO.

Respect · 100

0 of 18 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 84

1 of 18 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “ensure that the Canada Health Infoway program becomes operational again”The commitment names no measure, date or success condition for how the program will be made operational.

Claims · 7

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“the program has been relaunched”PrescribeIT has been relaunched.search
2“An agreement has been signed with at least one province to date”At least one province has signed an agreement concerning PrescribeIT as of October 2026.search
3“the program did not have the full support of the medical community”The PrescribeIT program was found to lack the full support of the medical community.search
4“she launched an independent review of the organizational structure and mandate of Canada Health Infoway”The Minister of Health launched an independent review of the organizational structure and mandate of Canada Health Infoway.search
5“welcomed by the Auditor General, who herself concluded that there was no need for her to conduct her own investigation”The Auditor General welcomed the independent review of Canada Health Infoway and concluded there was no need to conduct her own investigation.search
6“no supplementary budget has been allocated”No supplementary budget has been allocated to Canada Health Infoway as of October 2026.search
7“No further payments will be made until we receive the findings”No further payments to Canada Health Infoway will be made until the review’s findings are received.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19