Steven Fletcher

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this late proceeding is due to a question that I asked in November which dealt with the Auditor General's report in which the Auditor General outlined again numerous examples of Liberal mismanagement and waste.

In this case, specifically, Health Canada paid 400% more for certain drugs and spending increased by $88 million over the past two years. The Auditor General had pointed out to Health Canada on three previous occasions about the waste in drug programs and the Liberal government continues to do nothing.

Only after the fourth recommendation from the Auditor General in November 2004 did the government finally respond in any way to her proposal. Why it took so long still remains a mystery. However, based on the past record of Liberal inaction, how are we to believe that it will follow on its promised responses?

One of the most important issues is that of analyzing drug use trends, especially by looking at claims processing databases for high-risk patterns of drug use. This is especially important for high-risk groups like seniors.

The government's response to this issue was:

--electronic health records and electronic prescribing practices, as per the National Pharmaceutical Strategy commitments of First Ministers, will provide further tools to identify high-risk patterns of drug use and communicate information to health care professionals.

I agree wholeheartedly that electronic records are an important tool to limit drug problems. Almost 24,000 people die each year because of adverse events in large part due to complications resulting from errors in drug prescription.

To address this very problem of inadequate information, Canada Health Infoway was established several years ago by creating electronic records for all Canadians. Yet despite receiving $1.2 billion, the government foundation has only committed a small fraction of this to its goal.

The objective was to create electronic records for every Canadian by the year 2020. I wonder why, if people continue to die due to poor drug information, the government has not moved the deadline earlier, say to 2015 or 2010 or even two years from now. Why wait if people are dying? Why not commit all the money rather than let it sit in a bank account beyond the scrutiny of external audit? It is inexcusable that the Liberal government would use this foundation, which is supposed to create a program that will save lives, as a tool to hide money and fudge its surplus budgets.

People should not have to fear trips to the hospital. If the Liberals are serious about the Auditor General's recommendations, Infoway would be a good way to ensure that electronic records for every Canadian are implemented so we can regulate and follow the federal drug program.

Could the member tell us why the Liberals continue to waste and mismanage money at the cost of people, their lives and their quality of life?

[Health, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the health committee is diligently investigating the online pharmacy issue so that the best interests of Canadians will be served, yet the minister is determined to act rashly and shut down the industry, ignoring the health committee. Obviously he is under pressure from the U.S. government. Thousands of Canadians will be affected because the minister is caving in to the Americans.

What representation or correspondence has the minister received from Washington? Why will he not stand up to the American arm twisting?

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the motion is completely valid. The Auditor General should have, and must have, the ability to audit these foundations. What the member is suggesting is a way of undermining the integrity of the motion.

Again I find it very disturbing that transparency, accountability and a wide dissemination of accurate information seem to be things the Liberals continue to reject. It is like the facts are an obstacle to--

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, there was a technical problem and I did not hear the first part of the member's question, but in principle we are all Canadians and we are all contributing to these foundations. Therefore, we deserve to know if these foundations are providing the resources and services that are necessary for proper and effective health care in Canada.

The Liberal government seems to continuously waste Canadian taxpayers' money on all sorts of things and that is just where the Auditor General has the power to audit. I think most reasonable people would see the fact that the Liberal government seems to be restricting the Auditor General's ability to audit the foundations as a suggestion that the Liberal government has a lot to hide and that there may be more funny business to be found. That seems to be the only reason the government would take the position that it has, as recently as last night at the health committee.

I hope that for all our friends, from Quebec to B.C. and all the points in between and in Atlantic Canada see that these books are indeed audited for the greater good.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the issue of accountability is very important, especially in light of the recent scandals of the current government and the waste of taxpayers' money.

I think Canadians are a compassionate people. They appreciate the fact that we have a society where we try to look out for one another. Canadians also appreciate the value of a dollar. They do not appreciate moneys being wasted, and this government has demonstrated time and time again that it is able to waste billions of dollars without any accountability.

The latest Auditor General's report detailed how government foundations are beyond the scrutiny of the auditors. As of March 31, 2004, $9 billion had been paid to foundations.

Often this money is paid up front, many years in advance of the actual need. The Auditor General's report expressed concerns about the governance and accountability of the foundations themselves and the accounting for government transfers to the foundations.

Several of the largest government foundations are either directly or partly mandated to address health issues.

Canada Health Infoway was established to accelerate the development of electronic patient records. It has received $1.2 billion, yet has spent only a fraction of this amount.

As many as 24,000 Canadians are dying each year due to adverse events, including prescription error. It is inexcusable that the implementation of electronic records, which could significantly reduce these adverse events, is progressing very slowly. The money is there, yet it does not seem to be used in the way it was intended.

The Canadian Health Services Research Foundation is mandated to support research to improve the organization, management and delivery of health care services. As of a year ago, only a fraction of the $152 million the foundation originally received had been spent. In eight years, nearly $200 million sat in a bank account while the organization, management and delivery of health care services have deteriorated.

These two foundations fall directly under the purview of Health Canada. However, there are other foundations that, although not sponsored by Health Canada, still cover health related issues under at least part of their mandates. A few of these foundations are Genome Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

With all these foundations, a familiar pattern repeats itself. Hundreds of millions of dollars transferred to improve the health of Canadians sits unused. No one can say exactly what effect the money had or where it has been spent. Foundations lack the most basic fundamentals of accountability. They are not answerable to Parliament through a minister, the Auditor General does not have access to them, and Canadians have no idea if they are getting value for the $9 billion they have forked over.

The Auditor General also indicated that the government has no authority to interfere in the management of these foundations unless they are in violation of their funding arrangements. Thus, if the government's priorities change, the taxpayers and the government itself are powerless to redirect the foundations. In other words, there are no checks and balances in place to prevent, let alone detect, mismanagement and waste.

The Liberals continue to deny the Auditor General access to foundations for no good reason. They claim that foundations are doing good work for Canadians, but if that is the case, why does the government not allow these books to be open? If they are doing good work, what do they have to hide?

Obviously the lessons of ad scam have been lost on the government. The Auditor General has repeatedly recommended that foundations be subject to closer scrutiny, yet the Liberals offer weak excuses and ignore her suggestions. They continue to toss money to foundations despite the absence of needed accountability measures. There is little ministerial oversight. Parliamentary oversight is non-existent. Outcomes are not reported at all. External audit regimes suffer huge gaps.

To paraphrase the Auditor General, there is a lot of data but very little information. That little progress has been made since the Auditor General first made the recommendations in 1997 demonstrates a total and utter contempt by the current government for her office and for Parliament itself.

There is hope that the situation can be changed. Yesterday the Standing Committee on Health passed a motion requesting that the federal government appoint the Auditor General to provide external performance audits on health related government foundations. This motion passed with the support of all opposition parties. The Liberals however voted against the motion which indicates that they are against transparency and honesty when dealing with taxpayers' money.

It should be noted that the Auditor General stated at the meeting yesterday that her office often audits departments and agencies on the recommendations of committees. It is my hope that the Auditor General will follow the health committee's recommendation and submit government foundations to full scrutiny.

The issue is not just about government accountability. Canadians already know that the Liberals cannot be trusted with the public purse. Therefore the need is obvious that government foundations be subject to strict accountability and checks and balances.

This issue also concerns the health and well-being of Canadians, making it far more serious an issue than the loss of $100 million to Quebec ad firms. The fact that the Liberals, the supposed saviours of our health care, or that is how they try to portray themselves, instead of using these foundations to save lives would use them as a front to hide budget surpluses is truly unbelievable. The issue demands extra vigilance not only to protect taxpayers' money but also to ensure that commitments made to health are honoured.

I am a user of the health care system and I am also a taxpayer. It is very important to me that the services that I require are provided. It is my hope that Canadians do not have to endure some of the challenges that I have had to endure in the health care system.

As a taxpayer it is also my hope that my tax dollars are used appropriately so those who need the money can get the money, and that inefficiencies are not occurring. Unfortunately I fear that these foundations are not performing the way Canadians intended, or perhaps even the way the people who set up the foundations intended. There is simply no way of knowing.

Given the government's track record on ad scam, the gun registry boondoggle, the HRDC fiasco and countless other examples of waste, it is completely appropriate to give the Auditor General the power to review the foundations to ensure not only that government tax dollars are not being wasted but that the services these foundations were set up to provide are indeed being provided in a cost effective and timely way.

It is very important to support today's motion. Any party or members who do not support the motion I think leave a cloud of uncertainty over them that suggests they are not in favour of transparency, accountability or value for the taxpayer's dollar. I hope that all parties support the motion.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member. We heard the parliamentary secretary make comments about the negative aspects of this motion, but I find it very amazing that yesterday that same parliamentary secretary voted against a health committee motion to give the Auditor General the ability to audit Infoway, among other foundations related to health.

Unless he is against transparency, accountability and performance measures, why would the parliamentary secretary vote against the health committee motion, which passed with the support of all three opposition parties? Could the member comment?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I find it very ironic that the member accuses me of going off track on the issue, but in the same vein he talks about some offshore deal in Atlantic Canada. It is very ironic.

The fact is the issue is about compensation for hepatitis C victims. The government has not done the right thing and it should.

On the issue of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest, the Speaker should have taken into consideration that the Prime Minister is involved in decisions now dealing with the administration of government. He is dealing with the compensation of these victims in his position as Prime Minister. The fact is that some of his activities in his previous life should be taken into consideration when he is making decisions today that may reflect badly on his previous actions. This is very concerning.

I would like to ask the member this question. Is the money coming out of the victims' pockets to do these reviews?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, last Monday, a week ago today, I asked the member opposite about hepatitis C. The member opposite provided an answer that was completely unrelated which is disgraceful. The hepatitis C issue is very important to many people, yet the government decided not to address the issue but talked about a completely different issue.

A couple of days later I raised the issue of hepatitis C again. I conveyed my disgust and disappointment that the hon. member across the way was unable to answer or was not able to address the issue of hepatitis C and instead talked about on-line pharmacies. The member opposite suggested that his representative was provided with the wrong briefing notes on the Tuesday and then on the Wednesday suggested that I raised the wrong subject.

I would like to share with the member for the record the question which I asked and which led to last Monday's statement and tonight's issue. My question was posed on October 18, 2004 as follows:

The minister refuses to give Canadians an honest answer. Why is the government blatantly discriminating against the pre-1986 and post-1990 victims? Why will the minister not stand up in the House right now and tell Canadians that all victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood deserve compensation? Canadians know. Give an honest answer and do the right thing.

Clearly, this question had nothing to do with on-line pharmacies and had everything to do with hepatitis C. I hope that we can expect a better answer from the government side tonight.

I would also like to point out that on November 3 the Minister of Health failed to answer my question about the Prime Minister's connection to the tainted blood scandal. He was on the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation, which was implicated in the tainted blood scandal. As a decision-maker on the CDC, the Prime Minister had a pure conflict of interest in this matter. I would like the hon. member to comment on that. I wonder if this had anything to do with the delay in compensation for these victims.

In the health committee, all parties unanimously agreed to compensate hepatitis C victims, but the government has still delayed on this. The last time we went though this $58.5 million was spent on lawyers. Are we going to go through this again and spend millions of dollars on lawyers and GST? How much will the lawyer review cost? Will their fees come out of the victims' pockets?

I would like the member to respond about the Prime Minister's conflict of interest and how much the legal proceedings will cost?

[Government Appointments, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister appointed his friend and defeated Liberal candidate Glen Murray chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Less than a year ago this same Prime Minister promised that he “would put an end to cronyism”. Yet again the PM proves that, like his predecessor, he is firmly committed to Liberal Party cronyism.

When will the Prime Minister stop appointing people because of their close ties to the Liberal Party and start appointing people because of their ability?

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that was a really sad answer. The only thing sadder is what is happening today with the people who need this compensation.

I hope the experts he is referring to are more qualified than the member who answered the question on Monday night. The question clearly talked about hepatitis C and his response had nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is shameful. He should know that these people deserve compensation. It is indicative of the government being unable to care.

Instead of giving us mumbo-jumbo, will the member tell us when these people can expect compensation? This has not been going on for a month or two. It has been going on for years, almost a decade. Please compensate these people. Do not go on with these administrative mumbo-jumbos. Compensate them. They deserve it.