Health committee  Yes, I think we would support that, absolutely.

Health committee  I don't have that number handy, but I will share a couple of examples that might be helpful in your deliberations around Ozempic. It's obviously not covered under the proposed list of medications. It's widely used. We've recently had a shortage of Ozempic across the country, and my association works very regularly to address shortages that are a growing problem in the country.

Health committee  I'm actually not a practising pharmacist. I work for the Pharmacists Association and with those members to navigate some of the issues they encounter in their work.

Health committee  Absolutely. I think there are many services that pharmacists are delivering now to Canadians across communities. In many rural and remote parts of the country, the pharmacy is the closest access point that they have to health care. Pharmacare, as we mentioned, isn't just about the cost of the drug, but really the care that goes around it.

Health committee  There are a number of different services that are associated with drug management. Clearly there's the dispensing aspect, which makes sure that the person is getting counsel, that they're getting their drugs safely and effectively and that there are no drug interactions with other things.

Health committee  Some of the questions that we've so far heard, and that we've posed ourselves, question how that's interpreted in the legislation. I think what we're looking to see is a clearer definition of which payer would come in and whether a private payer will be maintained. I think a number of the provinces that have spoken publicly on this issue have also raised the fact that they would be looking to add to their current public plans while maintaining the private aspect that they have in their jurisdictions.

Health committee  I would probably share some of the same observations. We engage regularly with the department and we reach out when we see certain areas. We have been active on this file for many years, and we have discussed it regularly with officials at both the political and department level.

Health committee  I believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned this in his first report, but when it comes to the formularies in use, Quebec's is the strongest in the country. The committee will be meeting with our colleagues in the Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires tomorrow, and they'll be able to tell you all about the system.

Health committee  We think Bill C‑64 is a bit vague when it comes to the coverage of certain drugs under private plans. We need clearer information on that. Today, the minister suggested that they would continue to be covered, but the current bill makes no mention of that. It really needs to be laid out.

Health committee  It will have consequences for every facet of the industry. It will depend on the details. First, I talked a bit about the fact that pharmacists will have to spend a lot of time communicating these changes, given how significant they are. Second, the government's cost projections should capture the cost of closing the coverage gap between the public plan and private plans.

Health committee  It's clear that not all the provinces are at the same point when it comes to pharmacare. In Quebec, people already have drug coverage, even though the system may not be perfect. The situation really varies from province to province, from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Health committee  Yes, we have, and I can give you a few examples. When the federal non-insured health benefits program was transferred to British Columbia, around 17% of the medications that were covered under the federal program were no longer available through the province's publicly funded program.

Health committee  We've always advocated that the best way to serve patients is to help fill the gaps for people who don't have coverage or to help people who don't have enough coverage. Those are slightly different issues, and they need to have really tailored solutions. Absolutely, this could be a step up for somebody who doesn't have coverage, and we would support that, but in terms of the legislation, we would like to see a more explicit reference to maintaining private coverage so that it would go to that private coverage first.

Health committee  We would look to some of the definitions around single payer, and specifically coordination of benefits. If you have a spouse, you might be familiar with a pharmacist having to coordinate and first apply to one spouse's plan and then coordinate with the other spouse's plan so that you don't have to pay out of pocket, but doing so in a way that the private plan is charged first.

Health committee  Yes, of course. If pharmacists didn't need to monitor the medications people were taking or if their advice wasn't useful, drugs would be sold on store shelves, with no follow-up. It's important to recognize that the work pharmacists do when they provide patients with prescription drugs is quite complex.