Loading...
Canada deserves to know.
Loading...
On Tuesday, April 28, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary of Health moved the cameras off two minutes after a Conservative MP moved to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT. A parallel in-camera vote happened the same morning at the Ethics Committee on a motion about the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. Both votes were 6–5 on Liberal party lines.
On April 28, 2026 — the first day the Liberals’ new House majority took effect — two House of Commons standing committees voted to go in camera on motions involving public-interest accountability. At HESA (Health), Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Maggie Chi moved to take the meeting in camera while a Conservative motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT was on the floor. The vote was 6–5: six Liberals YEA, four Conservatives plus one Bloc MP NAY. At ETHI (Ethics), Liberal members made an identical move on a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. The pattern triggered a public defence from Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, who pledged "open committees" the next day.
The Standing Committee on Health gaveled in at 12:00 PM ET on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. The meeting had been forced under Standing Order 106(4) by opposition members who wanted to discuss the PrescribeIT program — the federal e-prescribing service that absorbed more than $290 million over a decade and is shutting down on May 29.
At 12:13 PM, Conservative health critic Dan Mazier moved that the committee request the Auditor General audit the program, and that the committee invite the Minister of Health and senior officials to appear within two weeks.
At 12:14 PM, Liberal Maggie Chi — Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health — moved that the committee proceed to sit in camera.
At 12:16 PM, the cameras went off. The vote was 6–5 on strict party lines.
YEAs, all Liberal: Chris Bittle, Maggie Chi, Doug Eyolfson, Helena Jaczek, Jake Sawatzky, Sonia Sidhu.
NAYs: Burton Bailey (CPC), Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (BQ), Helena Konanz (CPC), Dan Mazier (CPC), Matt Strauss (CPC).
The committee resumed in camera at 12:24 PM, suspended again at 12:36 PM and 12:51 PM, and adjourned at 1:00 PM.
These details are on the official ourcommons.ca Meeting 31 minutes. There is no source-attribution distance between Parliament Audit and the parliamentary record on the vote itself.
The same morning, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) was scheduled to debate a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen — a reference to the conflict-of-interest screen built around Mark Carney’s former Brookfield Asset Management ties, which Conservative MP Michael Barrett has previously characterized as covering roughly 103 entities.
According to Canadian Press wire reporting on April 29, ETHI’s meeting "went into closed-door sessions minutes after gaveling in," with the same Liberal-majority arithmetic. The party-line vote pattern matches HESA.
It is the same play, on the same day, in two different committees, on two different public-interest accountability motions. That fact — two committees, not one — is what makes the story strategic rather than incidental.
Conservative MP Dan Mazier, after the HESA vote: "We were going to ask the auditor general to come in and do an investigation and Liberal Maggie Chi voted to shut down the cameras." Separately: "It’s very disheartening to see the Liberals go to this degree of kind of authoritarianism." And: "It was astounding, it was awful. I think if that’s what Mark Carney plans to do with his newfound majority, I think Canadians should be really, really distressed."
Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett, on the ETHI vote: "That means that the media get kicked out, the public can’t watch online. It’s going to make it more difficult for us to be able to bring that accountability to bear and that’s a choice that Liberals have made."
Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, in response to the criticism: "I reject the premise. No one’s shutting down debate. We’re having lots of debate every day on a very ambitious legislative agenda."
Bloc MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, the lone non-Conservative NAY vote on HESA, attempted to ask Chi her reasoning before the in-camera vote was taken. The chair, acting Liberal MP Chris Bittle, ruled the question out of order on the grounds that members had already been called to vote.
Maggie Chi did not respond to email questions from Canadian Press. Liberal MPs Doug Eyolfson and Sonia Sidhu declined to comment to reporters.
On Wednesday, April 29 — the morning after — Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon publicly committed to "open committees." This was a reactive commitment, made under media pressure that included Canadian Press wire copy reprinted in 20+ outlets, CBC News’s lead politics piece for the day, Global News, National Post, and others. Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer responded that the commitment did not match what had happened on the ground 18 hours earlier.
On Thursday, April 30, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development (HUMA) was scheduled to debate a Bloc Québécois motion that would have required the government to produce documents on a $6.6-billion benefits-delivery IT modernization project — originally budgeted at $1.7 billion in 2017, now over three times that.
When HUMA convened, Liberal members instead pushed forward with clause-by-clause consideration of an unrelated bill, without notice, effectively running out the clock on the Bloc motion. This is procedural shelving, not an in-camera vote — different mechanism, same effect on access. Conservative MP Garnett Genuis told reporters: "Canadians will be worse off because they won’t have access to this information about this software."
Three committees in three days, three different mechanisms, three documents-and-audit motions deferred or moved out of public view. The Liberal majority has been in effect since Monday, April 27.
Several pieces of this file are not yet public.
The exact disposition of Mazier’s motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT — once the meeting went in camera — is not on the public record. The committee did, before adjourning, order unredacted documents from Canada Health Infoway and Telus Health on PrescribeIT costs, contracts, and board minutes. Whether the AG-audit motion was passed in part, in full, or shelved during the in-camera portion is not something we can report from the available record. The committee’s report on PrescribeIT, when tabled, will reveal it.
The exact disposition of the ETHI motion on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen is similarly not public.
The Auditor General’s office has not, as of publication, responded to the original April 27 request from Conservative MPs to investigate PrescribeIT. The AG can decline.
Whether HESA Meeting 32 (with the Health Minister summoned within two weeks) will be held in public or in camera is not yet announced.
We will update this article when those facts surface.
After 10 years and roughly $290 million in federal spending on the national e-prescribing service, fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions ever moved through it. Conservative MPs have asked the Auditor General to investigate.
The Acadie–Annapolis MP crossed the floor on the morning of the 2025 federal budget, after losing his Deputy Speaker salary top-up. Democracy Watch asked the Ethics Commissioner to investigate whether the lost income was a financial motive. The Commissioner declined.
On December 2, 2025, the Markham–Unionville MP rose in the House to call the Liberals "team asset inflation," "team rentier economy," and "team feudalism." Nine days later, he was one of them. He has admitted he was "truly a Conservative" the night before he crossed.
About this article
This article is based on publicly available legislative documents, government backgrounders, and expert analysis. Parliament Audit is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any legislation. All sources are linked above.
You're welcome to run this article in full on your newsroom, blog, newsletter, or paper. Keep the byline and the link back to parliamentaudit.ca. See the full terms.
<!-- Parliament Audit — republished under CC BY-ND 4.0 -->
<article>
<h1>Liberals Used Their New Majority to Vote a $298M Health Hearing Behind Closed Doors. The Vote Was 6–5.</h1>
<p><em>By Parliament Audit · May 6, 2026 · 6 min read</em></p>
<p><strong>On April 28, 2026 — the first day the Liberals’ new House majority took effect — two House of Commons standing committees voted to go in camera on motions involving public-interest accountability. At HESA (Health), Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Maggie Chi moved to take the meeting in camera while a Conservative motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT was on the floor. The vote was 6–5: six Liberals YEA, four Conservatives plus one Bloc MP NAY. At ETHI (Ethics), Liberal members made an identical move on a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. The pattern triggered a public defence from Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, who pledged "open committees" the next day.</strong></p>
<h2>The 16 minutes</h2>
<p>The Standing Committee on Health gaveled in at 12:00 PM ET on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. The meeting had been forced under Standing Order 106(4) by opposition members who wanted to discuss the PrescribeIT program — the federal e-prescribing service that absorbed more than $290 million over a decade and is shutting down on May 29.</p>
<p>At 12:13 PM, Conservative health critic Dan Mazier moved that the committee request the Auditor General audit the program, and that the committee invite the Minister of Health and senior officials to appear within two weeks.</p>
<p>At 12:14 PM, Liberal Maggie Chi — Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health — moved that the committee proceed to sit in camera.</p>
<p>At 12:16 PM, the cameras went off. The vote was 6–5 on strict party lines.</p>
<p>YEAs, all Liberal: Chris Bittle, Maggie Chi, Doug Eyolfson, Helena Jaczek, Jake Sawatzky, Sonia Sidhu.</p>
<p>NAYs: Burton Bailey (CPC), Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (BQ), Helena Konanz (CPC), Dan Mazier (CPC), Matt Strauss (CPC).</p>
<p>The committee resumed in camera at 12:24 PM, suspended again at 12:36 PM and 12:51 PM, and adjourned at 1:00 PM.</p>
<p>These details are on the official ourcommons.ca Meeting 31 minutes. There is no source-attribution distance between Parliament Audit and the parliamentary record on the vote itself.</p>
<h2>The same morning at Ethics</h2>
<p>The same morning, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) was scheduled to debate a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen — a reference to the conflict-of-interest screen built around Mark Carney’s former Brookfield Asset Management ties, which Conservative MP Michael Barrett has previously characterized as covering roughly 103 entities.</p>
<p>According to Canadian Press wire reporting on April 29, ETHI’s meeting "went into closed-door sessions minutes after gaveling in," with the same Liberal-majority arithmetic. The party-line vote pattern matches HESA.</p>
<p>It is the same play, on the same day, in two different committees, on two different public-interest accountability motions. That fact — two committees, not one — is what makes the story strategic rather than incidental.</p>
<h2>What each side said on the record</h2>
<p>Conservative MP Dan Mazier, after the HESA vote: "We were going to ask the auditor general to come in and do an investigation and Liberal Maggie Chi voted to shut down the cameras." Separately: "It’s very disheartening to see the Liberals go to this degree of kind of authoritarianism." And: "It was astounding, it was awful. I think if that’s what Mark Carney plans to do with his newfound majority, I think Canadians should be really, really distressed."</p>
<p>Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett, on the ETHI vote: "That means that the media get kicked out, the public can’t watch online. It’s going to make it more difficult for us to be able to bring that accountability to bear and that’s a choice that Liberals have made."</p>
<p>Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, in response to the criticism: "I reject the premise. No one’s shutting down debate. We’re having lots of debate every day on a very ambitious legislative agenda."</p>
<p>Bloc MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, the lone non-Conservative NAY vote on HESA, attempted to ask Chi her reasoning before the in-camera vote was taken. The chair, acting Liberal MP Chris Bittle, ruled the question out of order on the grounds that members had already been called to vote.</p>
<p>Maggie Chi did not respond to email questions from Canadian Press. Liberal MPs Doug Eyolfson and Sonia Sidhu declined to comment to reporters.</p>
<h2>The pattern that followed</h2>
<p>On Wednesday, April 29 — the morning after — Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon publicly committed to "open committees." This was a reactive commitment, made under media pressure that included Canadian Press wire copy reprinted in 20+ outlets, CBC News’s lead politics piece for the day, Global News, National Post, and others. Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer responded that the commitment did not match what had happened on the ground 18 hours earlier.</p>
<p>On Thursday, April 30, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development (HUMA) was scheduled to debate a Bloc Québécois motion that would have required the government to produce documents on a $6.6-billion benefits-delivery IT modernization project — originally budgeted at $1.7 billion in 2017, now over three times that.</p>
<p>When HUMA convened, Liberal members instead pushed forward with clause-by-clause consideration of an unrelated bill, without notice, effectively running out the clock on the Bloc motion. This is procedural shelving, not an in-camera vote — different mechanism, same effect on access. Conservative MP Garnett Genuis told reporters: "Canadians will be worse off because they won’t have access to this information about this software."</p>
<p>Three committees in three days, three different mechanisms, three documents-and-audit motions deferred or moved out of public view. The Liberal majority has been in effect since Monday, April 27.</p>
<h2>What we do not know yet</h2>
<p>Several pieces of this file are not yet public.</p>
<p>The exact disposition of Mazier’s motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT — once the meeting went in camera — is not on the public record. The committee did, before adjourning, order unredacted documents from Canada Health Infoway and Telus Health on PrescribeIT costs, contracts, and board minutes. Whether the AG-audit motion was passed in part, in full, or shelved during the in-camera portion is not something we can report from the available record. The committee’s report on PrescribeIT, when tabled, will reveal it.</p>
<p>The exact disposition of the ETHI motion on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen is similarly not public.</p>
<p>The Auditor General’s office has not, as of publication, responded to the original April 27 request from Conservative MPs to investigate PrescribeIT. The AG can decline.</p>
<p>Whether HESA Meeting 32 (with the Health Minister summoned within two weeks) will be held in public or in camera is not yet announced.</p>
<p>We will update this article when those facts surface.</p>
<hr />
<p><small>
Originally published by <a href="https://parliamentaudit.ca/news/liberal-majority-cameras-off-april-28">Parliament Audit</a>
under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND 4.0</a> license.
<img src="https://parliamentaudit.ca/api/republish-beacon?slug=liberal-majority-cameras-off-april-28" alt="" width="1" height="1" />
</small></p>
</article>