E-health spends a billion while ERs close

The night before Halloween – also known as Devil’s Night in Detroit -- I attended a rally in Windsor protesting the eHealth scandal. Two hundred people marched with signs reading, ‘where is the money’ and ‘we want our money back’.

Over a billion dollars has disappeared, while emergency departments are being closed at Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Petrolia, Burks Falls, …Hagersville remains a concern.

Many have spent sleepless nights – I’m writing this at four in the morning – calculating ambulance travel times if the local ER were to close. Yet as emergency departments are being shut down in the name of cost-savings, we have the frustration of seeing a billion dollars spent on eHealth with little to show.

Recent Opposition motions have seen both the Progressive Conservative call for a public inquiry and the NDP demand for Ombudsman oversight of health expenditures. But a provincial government majority is keen on maintaining the veil of secrecy before more damning details are released. And now – under threat of a public inquiry – this government has introduced legislation to gut the Public Inquiries Act.

This government-imposed code of silence grew more disturbing at Public Accounts Committee when once again majority ruled. This time, government committee members reinforced the seeming cover-up by voting down an Opposition request to have key players in the eHealth scandal, Sarah Kramer and Dr. Alan Hudson, explain the roles they played in the billion dollar boondoggle.

To be clear, the wanton spending we have seen at eHealth calls for oversight. But whether it be calls for the Ombudsman, or the Auditor General, or the Integrity Commissioner, ultimate responsibility remains with government and cabinet ministers themselves.

I have a great deal of respect for the Ombudsman. His role it is to investigate complaints about services provided not only by the government itself but its organizations. I think of his report on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp – both excellent reads.

Similarly, the Auditor General does a good job in holding government accountable for the administrative stewardship of public funds. And the Integrity Commissioner, established in 1989, reflects the need to maintain high standards of ethical conduct in public service.

While all three do yeoman’s service, I feel they don't take the place of the responsibility and the accountability that lie solely within the function and the role of a cabinet minister, or a Premier.

It was not always thus.

The whole idea of responsible government was for government to be in itself responsible, to be accountable and to provide the oversight necessary to ensure taxpayer-funded programs did not go off the rails. If we go back to the 1850’s, commencing with the reign of co-Premier Robert Baldwin, it was customary to expect a level of responsibility, not to mention competence, from government ministers. The adherence to the concepts of responsibility and accountability was such that government ministers - including Baldwin himself – stepped aside a number of times rather than compromise values, character or ultimately their honour.

As I think about the need for renewed responsibility, I wonder as well if the government would be behaving so cavalierly if my private member's bill, The Recall Act, had made its way through third reading.