Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Albert Deschamps]

Excuse me?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

All of the pharmacists who've signed up in Quebec--you mentioned that they're increasing day by day, at over 300. Are they now on the system that was put in place on January 17? They were instructed by their association not to use the system. Are they currently using it, or is a portion using the system?

[Albert Deschamps]

On that particular question, those who have registered have registered because they sent in a claim. It doesn't mean that they've registered to the electronic system. So there's a bit of a difference.

We're hoping that these pharmacies will eventually sign on to the electronic system, because that will give them what they've been asking for: a tool that will help them understand who is eligible or not as a beneficiary, what the coverage is, what the products are, what the reimbursements are, etc.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure, but my question is, are any of the pharmacists who have signed up with the administrator currently using the electronic system?

[Albert Deschamps]

No. That would be no.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

We talked about the fact that agreements already exist between AQPP and four other federal departments. We listed the RCMP, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Defence.

You've probably contacted these departments to see whether their agreements were working well. It seems that this is the case. When AQPP spoke to you about it, I presume that you went to see your colleagues at national defence and at public safety to ask them if their agreement with AQPP was working well.

[Albert Deschamps]

I'm going to hand things over to my colleague, who has a better understanding of the situation with the other programs.

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

Thank you.

Actually, we can't make a comparison because it isn't the same thing. The purpose of the agreement established with the four departments mentioned earlier was to meet needs that were different from ours. So we cannot compare the agreement made with the Federal Healthcare Partnership and the one made with the Interim Federal Health Program for refugees.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In asking my question, I wasn't looking to find out whether we could compare them. They're all different. That's why they are separate programs. Otherwise, they'd be one and the same. I want to know if they are working well.

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

You'd have to ask them.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay, so you haven't checked whether they were working well.

Pharmacists have told us that these programs were working well. Of course, these agreements are all different from each other because they involve different programs. For you, is it at least a worthwhile base to work from? Could you come to consider a philosophically similar agreement, obviously taking into account the specifics of the Interim Federal Health Program?

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

Actually, we are not negotiating the partnership agreement with AQPP. As Mr. Deschamps mentioned, Medavie Blue Cross' updated computer system has adjudication functions or functions that AQPP would like to have. It is already in the system and all registered pharmacists with access to the system can access it. Among other things, it deals with client eligibility. When they are serving a client, they know immediately whether that client is eligible and whether the medication is covered or not. They also immediately know the amount reimbursable, including the cost of the medication, the service fee, and so on.

Having an agreement like the one established by those four federal departments, as we have been talking about, would mean adding many more details to what is already in the system. For us, that would mean…

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

So there is no problem doing it.

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

It's just that we don't need an agreement like the one already in place with the other federal groups.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Accepting that you don't need it, we can still say that it is not a problem to do.

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

We are in discussions at the moment. It is a little soon to tell what form the agreement will take, like whether it will be a MOU. It will all depend on what is in it. That is what we are discussing.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I understand that you are holding discussions, exchanging views, negotiating—call it what you want. I have no problem with any of the due diligence and I am not asking you to talk about the negotiations or speculate on their outcome. I just want to make sure that there is no inherent problem with the basic question.

You are saying that all the parameters already exist, that they are known and that people just have to look at how they work. You are telling us that a similar, comparable agreement to the one other departments already have is not necessary. At the same time, we have to admit that it would not be a problem to have one. Since you are saying that everything is already in place, there is no problem including it in an agreement.

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

The idea is to understand what the real needs of coming together are, given that everything is already there in the system. That is why we are having the discussions.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Are you aware of the difference between Quebec's business model and the Canadian one? In Quebec, for legal reasons, each of the owners is independent and must be a pharmacist. There is a union that negotiates for all pharmacists. So a model using bilateral agreements between CIC and each pharmacist cannot work, because it does not fit the Quebec framework.

Are you aware of the reality of that situation?

[Dr. Danielle Grondin]

We are aware of what the law requires and does not require.

I will let my colleague answer the question.

[Albert Deschamps]

We recognize that AQPP has the status of a professional association and that there are legal instruments to that effect. But we have seen nothing yet that prevents us from having discussions with owner pharmacists directly. We invite AQPP members to provide us with any documents supporting their view that we are breaking the law by holding discussions with them.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Is AQPP's legal situation the same in all federal departments? Why would CIC come to a different conclusion from the Department of National Defence or from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada? They have both reached agreements with AQPP directly.

[Albert Deschamps]

It was their decision to do so. CIC has no third party agreements in Canada. Other departments have them: that is their choice, their prerogative. Because of the specifics of the program, CIC is serving a different clientele than in other agreements. The clientele is transient and it has different needs. That is why CIC chose a direct arrangement with owner pharmacists for its model. They have everything that is needed to serve that clientele.