Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on federal funding for Canada Health Infoway, a agency that develops digital health records and e-prescribing technology. Matt Strauss of the Conservatives said Infoway spent $300 million on its PrescribeIT e-prescribing project without tangible results and asked why the government is providing it another $50 million this year, arguing the money would be better returned to taxpayers or spent on hospitals and nurses. Liberal Kevin Lamoureux responded that the government is investing in modern technology, including digital health tools and AI, and that the federal government has a leadership role even where provinces have not joined federal plans; he also cited a $5-billion fund to help provinces build and improve hospitals.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

4 statements

Matt Strauss

Conservative
“Canada Health Infoway wastes money and has nothing to show for it after 20 years. The health minister even had its leader fired. I want to know why the government is still giving this group another $50 million this year.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because, on May 6, I asked the Liberal Minister of Health how much more money she was planning on giving Canada Health Infoway, given that it had blown $300 million on PrescribeIT for no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. She answered that the CEO of Canada Health Infoway’s “behaviour was [totally] unacceptable”, and that is why she asked the board of directors to fire him. Then she said that she was going to give Canada Health Infoway another $50 million this year. I will say, I am grateful that she gave a clear-cut, numerical answer rather than dodging the question. That is commendable. However, that clear-cut, numerical answer was totally unacceptable. Why would she give such a backward organization another $50 million this year? That is my question. I have a bit more time, so I want to say that I took the unprecedented step tonight of emailing this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health’s staff. I would never break the rules in this place and comment on the presence or absence of another member; however, I do want to share that I have a terrible feeling that I will be disappointed and that neither of them will answer my question tonight. When this organization came to health committee, I asked its chair, after $4 billion had been pumped into this organization, after 20 years, could he name one tangible program, something it managed, directed, built or designed, that is currently benefiting taxpayers? He could not. He only said that it rolled out a lot of federal funding, answering in vague platitudes. It seems to me that Canada Health Infoway has become a slush fund. The Liberals shovel money at it and then Liberal insiders shovel money around, including to lobbying firms such as Crestview Strategy and, I think, Summer Strategies was the other one. Obviously, it is badly run. The Liberals say it is independent, but then the health minister calls it up and gets the CEO fired. Why would they give such a backward organization another $50 million this year?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal

Linked statement

“Our government is trying to improve health care by using modern technology like computers and AI. Even if the provinces do not always join our plans right away, the federal government still has a duty to lead on this.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 94 of 100

    Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue. There is a big difference between the Conservatives’ approach and the government’s approach in dealing with the important issue of health care. The issue the government has been attempting to deal with is something that incorporates the Internet and AI and includes many different stakeholders. The purpose of it is to see how we can deliver a better service to Canadians in the whole area of health care. I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months, and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received. When people go from one doctor’s office to another doctor’s office and then to a pharmacy, I suspect they are all getting very similar information, information that is advantageous to the consumer or client, the individual receiving it. I say that because I think it is important for us to recognize that as we advance through technology, there is a role for a national government to look at ways it could potentially complement or, in many ways, lead the reforms or manage the changes that are necessary in order to deliver the quality of health care that Canadians expect and deserve. That means, at times, that when we take that leadership role, if there is no take-up on it from other jurisdictions, provinces in particular, at some point in time, we need to recognize that we might have to change what the initial objectives might have been. It does not take away from the fact that the government does have a responsibility in delivering, as much as possible, and contributing to the best health care system we can have. What I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table. I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide, where it can, some leadership on important files. I am sure if the member were to consult with his constituents, he would find that his constituents, like mine, want a national government to show where there are opportunities for technology. Even though it might not have developed to the degree we would have liked to see in terms of the buy-in, I believe that at the end of the day, we will have a stronger health care system because there will be other entities, whether territories or provinces, that will be able to reflect on what Ottawa was attempting to do and learn from it in different ways. I would suggest that there are many different stakeholders in our health care system, whether they are pharmacists, clients or doctors, and at the end of the day we all have a way to contribute in managing the changes that are necessary to ensure that we have first-quality health care. At times, there might—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Matt Strauss

Conservative
“The government should not give $50 million to Canada Health Infoway. This group has wasted billions over 20 years without results. The government should return this money to taxpayers or spend it on hospitals and nurses instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member’s first question, I am terribly disappointed. That was no answer at all. I know my constituents very well. I am from the Waterloo region. It is the tech capital of Canada. My constituents, those who work in tech, would love to get a $50-million contract to do nothing. This organization, after 20 years and $4 billion, has done nothing tangible. I am asking the government why it is giving this organization another $50 million, and the member could not point to anything it is going to do. It is going to look at some things. He went to his doctor’s office and the doctor was using technology. I am a doctor, and doctors use technology without Canada Health Infoway blowing $50 million on lobbying firms to tell us to use it. The government needs to stop it. My constituents beg the government to stop it. Do not give this $50 million away. Give it back to taxpayers, build hospitals or hire nurses with it, but stop doing this, please.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal
“We have a $5-billion fund to help provinces build and improve hospitals. Both federal and provincial governments must change and modernize our health-care system so Canadians get the quality care they need.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are many different things the federal government does in terms of improving the quality of health care for Canadians. The member said to build hospitals. We actually have a capital fund of $5 billion that is going to be out there to assist provinces in doing just what the member is suggesting. For example, I have talked about the Seven Oaks General Hospital and the Victoria Hospital re-establishing emergency services. I compliment the member for providing medical services to his constituents and beyond. I think we need to start thinking of ways, as I am sure the member would acknowledge, for us to reform, make changes and demonstrate leadership in our health care area. If we are not prepared to manage the changes that are needed into the future, we will not be able to deliver the type of quality health care Canadians want to see. I am sure he would recognize that fact. It does not mean that every area is going to be laid out in a perfect form. I just believe that, at the end of the day, it is important, whether it is the federal government or provincial government, that we look at ways to incorporate technology and use the technology—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 128

All 36 items ·
  1. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  4. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Persons with Disabilities 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions International Trade 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  8. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  14. Government Orders Government Orders 50 statements
  15. Private Members' Business Old Age Security Act 12 statements
  16. Adjournment Proceedings Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  17. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements