I was encouraged by the minister's comments and I think if we could see that reflected in the legislation, I think we'd be vehemently in accordance with what he has in mind, but we don't see that reflected in this bill. I think that's the issue that we have.
Terms have not been defined. They're used repetitively in different contexts in different ways, and they could be interpreted to mean different things in different sections of the act.
The preamble requires the minister to take into consideration some previous studies that have firmly recommended a universal single-payer pharmacare program, and the Canada Health Act is referenced throughout. When you read it in its entirety, it creates an enormous amount of uncertainty. Those terms have developed a meaning over time in Canada through the courts, through the provinces, to mean certain things. I think we take comfort in what the minister says, but we also would like to see that better reflected in the legislation.
We talked a bit about dental care today. A lot of care was taken with that program to ensure that it was targeted at those who didn't already have coverage, and protections were put in place to ensure that employers didn't drop plans. I think that this kind of care and attention needs to be brought to this legislation so that it actually, over time, doesn't drift away from the intent that the minister described for us today.