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.