Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 1st, 2011

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

So you check the source of funds a second time.

[Sean McLuckie]

We do it from a somewhat different point of view, but we're indeed the ones who make the decision regarding eligibility. It's more a matter of the criminal aspect than of the source of the funds.

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

All right, thank you.

Now I'll turn to my motion. May I do that now?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure. Let me just dismiss the witnesses.

Monsieur Gilbert, I want to thank you and your colleagues from Kenya and Taiwan for coming and helping us with this issue. We appreciate your presentations.

Mr. McLuckie, thank you to you too, sir.

Monsieur St-Cyr, you have a motion. Could you read the motion into the record?

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

Of course, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) of the Standing Orders, that the following be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity:

That, while it recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to establish the list of drugs covered by the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommends that the government rapidly reach a formal IFHP agreement with the Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires (AQPP).

That the Committee recommends furthermore that CIC immediately conform to the terms of the temporary agreement, reached on February 2, 2011, which provides for the processing of claims from all AQPP members, including those that have not individually registered with Medavie Blue Cross.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first part, it's quite simple: the committee has already held two meetings to discuss this situation. I believe the government has every interest in reaching an agreement with the AQPP. Other partners of the Interim Federal Health Program have already done so. As stated on the program's website, they include, in particular, the RCMP, National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. There are also the aboriginal issues that are Health Canada's responsibility. CIC is named there as a partner, in the same capacity as those other organizations. So there is no justification for not reaching this kind of agreement.

This not only goes without saying, but it also works to CIC's advantage. It enables it to deal with one single entity representing 1,800 Quebec pharmacists. It will no longer have to register 1,800 individuals separately since the pharmacists are required by law to comply with the agreements entered into. Consequently, although a large percentage of refugees are in the Montreal region, this kind of agreement would enable them to obtain these services at a pharmacy if they are passing through the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, for example.

I think you have to respect the fact that there is a union of owner pharmacists in Quebec. It was Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I believe, who pointed last time that the government's attitude was like an attempt to break the union and to negotiate individually, which, in my view, is a purely ideological approach. The government has every interest in proceeding differently.

As for the second part, the government entered into an agreement with the pharmacists on February 2, one day before our committee met, and that put an end to the pharmacists' ability to bring pressure to bear. However, the testimony of a number of pharmacists indicates that the agreement has not been complied with. The pharmacists are still being asked to register individually, which is not consistent with the agreement or with what has been explained to us here. Individual registration is the issue in the current dispute between the two parties. We get the impression that, by forcing the pharmacists to register individually, the government is trying to present them with a fait accompli and to tell them that it ultimately doesn't need to negotiate with them.

I believe the motion is balanced. It acknowledges that CIC determines coverage and that all that is of interest to the pharmacists is the mechanics, repayment procedures and disputes.

So I invite committee members to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to the motion in two parts. I would like to speak to the motion and I would like to put forward some potential amendments to the motion.

I think there are some parts of the motion that the government is prepared to support from the committee perspective, but there are portions of it that are somewhat contrary to the actual work the ministry is engaged in with the pharmacies in Quebec.

Most important, I want to quickly comment on the issue of union-busting. I couldn't help but smile when I heard that, because it's actually contrary to what the department is trying to do in terms of working with the pharmacies.

The issue at hand here is that to ensure the pharmacies are reimbursed in a timely manner and according to the parameters of the interim federal health program, the pharmacies are required to register.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me.

I understand the rule is that when the bills are ringing—I guess there's going to be a vote in 30 minutes—I need unanimous consent to continue for a short period of time.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is agreed.

Mr. Dykstra, you may continue.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's really the issue at hand; regardless of how the negotiations move forward, there is the requirement of the individual pharmacies to register with the ministry. It's been pretty clear, based on the presentation and the questions asked when the representatives were here from the association, that this is not a process they support. I can understand that. They would like to be the face, if you will, that deals directly with the ministry. Then they could go back to the individual pharmacies to point out the successes they have gained in negotiations. That's typical of any type of bargaining. But this is not typical bargaining.

This is a funding relationship that the ministry needs to have directly with the pharmacies. The department is not interested in union-busting. The department is not interested in trying to develop hundreds of individual relationships. They need the ability, when a claim is put in on behalf of a refugee, to work through the third party, which is Medavie Blue Cross. They'll resolve whatever concerns might arise between the individual pharmacies. They can do that, I guess, through the association, if they so desire. But this is a practical approach that is used across the country in all other provinces and territories.

Having said all that, I understand some of the concerns that have been pointed out by Mr. St-Cyr. Interestingly enough, on the weekend I was in Montreal and was speaking with a couple of pharmacists on Saturday evening. We talked about a great number of things, but this wasn't one that they brought up as a matter of huge concern.

In any event, if this compromise is acceptable to the mover, then I think we would have certainly the government's support for the hope and the desire and the wish that these two parties continue to discuss, and that we are able to work through a fair and reasonable approach to this issue.

It would read, as follows, that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) of the Standing Orders, the following be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity:

That, while it recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to establish the list of drugs covered by the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommends that the government and the Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires (AQPP) proceed as quickly as possible to resolve outstanding issues; and

That the Committee recommends furthermore that CIC and AQPP continue in the interim to conform to the terms of the temporary agreement, reached on February 2, 2011, which provides for the processing of claims from pharmacists in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, I think I get the gist, but to be sure that the clerk has the appropriate wording, please give the clerk your proposed amendment in writing.

Is there debate on the amendment?

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I understand the government's willingness to move the issue forward. Unfortunately, I believe this amendment is unacceptable. Its aim is precisely the opposite of what I'm advocating, and I believe the other opposition parties will agree on that point. There is no reason to wonder why that would be different in Quebec. It's different in Quebec because it's different. That's all.

This works well with National Defence, with the RCMP, with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs, so I don't see why it wouldn't work just as well with CIC. I'm going to recommend that members vote against this amendment, which completely dilutes the entire intent of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go to Mr. Oliphant and then to Mr. Dykstra.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This may be an opportunity for the parliamentary secretary to help me understand this a little bit better. I heard good intent, and now I'm hearing a concern, so I'm actually a little confused on this and sort of struggling a bit to understand it.

It seems to me that the intent of the original motion was to put the onus on the government to reach an agreement. It seems that the shift in the actual amendment is to take the onus off the government to reach an agreement and to put it on both parties.

I'm predisposed to saying that in an agreement, both parties should be involved. That is to the benefit of the people of Canada, who are footing the tax bill. It's also of benefit to the pharmacists to be involved in that negotiation so that the power doesn't shift.

I'm going to ask the Bloc member to comment on that as well.

It seems to me that the pharmacists would want to be involved in that negotiation so that it's more like mediation and consultation as opposed to becoming almost like arbitration, when we end up getting to tell the government to do this.

I'm happy to tell the government to do many things. I'm predisposed to telling them, but I'm more predisposed to conversation.

As I said when we saw the witnesses here, my concern is not for the pharmacists, and it's frankly not for the CIC. My concern is for the refugees who need to get drugs and for the people of Quebec who need to make sure that people with infectious diseases are actually being treated in a timely manner. If we don't have an infectious disease treated because someone can't get the drugs, because the person can't pay for them, that's a concern to me for public health reasons.

I want this agreement to be reached quickly. I like the intent of the original motion, but I'm also liking the intent of the government's amendment, which looks like it's attempting to bring parties together to the table so that something is not imposed.

I need to confirm that this indeed is the real intent of the government member's motion.

I also need to know if I'm missing something from the original proposer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go to Mr. Dykstra and then to Mr. St-Cyr.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I actually appreciate the request for clarification that Mr. Oliphant is making. Let me use his example as a way to respond.

He indicated that he has no issue with telling the government what to do in particular cases. From an opposition perspective, I completely understand what he is referencing when it comes to that point. When the opposition objects to or disagrees with the direction the government is moving, it is their right to oppose that and to suggest an alternate policy direction or an alternate direction in terms of where the government is going. I understand that on a macro level that's exactly the type of relationship the government and the opposition are supposed to have. In fact, the opposition is often challenged to bring forward better ideas and see where we can go with them.

The fact is that this is not on a macro level. This is a micro-level issue. While I can appreciate that Mr. St-Cyr wants to see a resolution, this is a micro issue within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration we are dealing with here at the table. I'll put that aside for one moment.

We are going to involve ourselves in a micro-level issue that is the responsibility of civil servants, who are paid and accept responsibility for implementing this program in particular, and our recommendations and government legislation in general. I would say to my colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party that this amendment I'm recommending is one that does not involve us directly in the negotiations as elected officials, or the board of directors, if you will. We are simply making a very clear statement that both the ministry and the association that represents the pharmacists should be sitting down to continue to work to come to the end goal of a resolution. That gets to exactly what Mr. Oliphant has stated, which is about the delivery of service to Canadians and the delivery of service to refugees in the province of Quebec.

I don't see anything wrong with an amendment that suggests that the parties need to get together to come to a solution. What I don't support and what the government doesn't support is a unilateral recommendation, which is within Mr. St-Cyr's motion, that unilaterally orders the government to come to an agreement on the terms. In fact, that's impossible to do when both parties have to negotiate what that agreement is going to consist of.

I'm asking Mr. St-Cyr to see his way clear to supporting the amendment. If not, I'm going to ask the opposition parties, outside of the Bloc, to defeat his motion and to support the amendment I put forward here at the table. I believe it speaks to a resolution that we can all live with.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

I'm told this vote is going to take place at 11:08. It's up to the committee, but I'd like to dispose of this matter today, so I'm just putting you on notice that this meeting will end at 11 o'clock.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

In my view, the original motion does not at all represent micro-management, on the contrary. There is no determination at all of what is expected from the agreement. The motion states that we want the two parties to sit down and come to an agreement.

As a committee, however, we want to set a direction for public policy in that this agreement should draw on those previously reached with the other four government departments.

As regards Mr. Oliphant's question concerning the two parts, the only reason why the motion states "recommends that the government" is that a committee normally makes recommendations to the government.

That said, if the amendment were to be defeated, I would be prepared to accept another one that would state: "asks the government and the AQPP to reach a formal agreement under the Interim Federal Health Program". I believe the amendment moved by the government, the aim of which is ultimately to remove this possibility from any agreement with the AQPP, is unacceptable. That will work to the detriment of refugees, since a lot of owner pharmacists in Quebec will not register. This conflict could well be perpetuated. Refugees will therefore have to start shopping, going from pharmacy to pharmacy to try to find which ones are registered. However, if a formal agreement were reached, whatever it might be, refugees could go to any pharmacy.

I therefore invite you once again to vote against the government party's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow, on the amendment.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I don't support the amendment. I support the original motion, because Quebec, unlike the rest of Canada, has an organization, the AQPP. It has members. We should respect that. It has been formed, and there's no reason why we would not respect its established policies and its practices. The motion itself does not impose an agreement. It basically said “rapidly reach a form of agreement”. Just encouraging them to reach an agreement doesn't say the agreement should be A, B, C, D, E, or F. I would definitely oppose that. It's not imposing. It's just saying to the government do this, and do it quickly, and in the meantime, make sure no one is left behind, which is the intention that everyone supports anyway.

So I don't see why we should support the amendment in front of us, because it eliminates the mention of AQPP, the organization of Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate on the amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Is there further debate on the motion?

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Critics and parliamentary secretary, we have a subcommittee meeting at 12:30 at the Promenade--somewhere.

The meeting is adjourned.