Monetary policy is not fiscal policy.
Pharmacare Act
An Act respecting pharmacare
This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.
This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.
Mark Holland Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare and obliges the Minister to make payments, in certain circumstances, in relation to the coverage of certain prescription drugs and related products. It also sets out certain powers and obligations of the Minister — including in relation to the preparation of a list to inform the development of a national formulary and in relation to the development of a national bulk purchasing strategy — and requires the Minister to publish a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products. Finally, it provides for the establishment of a committee of experts to make certain recommendations.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-64s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-64, also known as the Pharmacare Act, proposes a framework for a national universal pharmacare program in Canada, starting with coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. The bill aims to improve accessibility, affordability, and equity in prescription drug coverage while also establishing the Canadian Drug Agency to oversee a national formulary and bulk purchasing strategy. However, some argue that the bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction, duplicates existing programs, and does not address the root causes of affordability issues.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Monetary policy is not fiscal policy.
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I love how the Liberals across the way are defending the Prime Minister, who said to the reporter, “Glen, we took on debt so you don't have to”.
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
No, you just don't know the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy. They are two different things—
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order, please.
There are going to be questions and comments after this, and I am sure if members put their hand up they can get to ask questions on this.
The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha has the floor.
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, 27 million Canadians who rely on workplace plans would be placed at risk by the legislation. It would create the Canadian drug agency, which would cost about $90 million to create, and perhaps another $35 million a year to continue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says it would cost tens of billions of dollars. However, when asked, the Liberals do not have an answer. They are not sure. It is kind of like the carbon tax, which was supposed to be revenue-neutral but made a billion dollars, but we are not really sure where that money went. Nobody seems to know.
The major cause of people's inability to afford their medications is the cost of living. The number one reason people say they cannot afford their medications is inflation and the cost of living.
This one is my favourite. Who remembers the $4.5-billion promise from the Liberals of a mental health transfer? I cannot find it. I have not seen it. However, what I do know is that we have ranked 35th out of 38 in the world for teen suicide. That is where we are at in Canada, but the Liberals are going to come save us. They do not deliver. They are the guy who promises—
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The member is out of time, almost 30 seconds past her time.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad I do not live in the world the member lives in. It is another dystopia. The last time I listened to the member go on in a speech in that vein was on Bill C-35, the child care bill. She went on and on arguing against it and then, at the end of the night, she voted for it. In fact, every single member on that side voted for the bill.
I am wondering if it is going to be the same story with the pharmacare bill.
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member brought up child care, because what chaos has been delivered by the Liberal-NDP government. I would strongly encourage her to reach out. There is a call right now by child care operators and families across this country. They are in dire straits from coast to coast to coast. They cannot access child care. Women cannot go to work because they cannot access child care. Children have nowhere to go. Operators who have built their entire lives on this are losing their business. There are 77% of high-income people accessing this program. That is on the Liberals' watch.
It is another failure, and it is exactly what this pharmacare bill will be.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle just asked my colleague who just spoke a question saying that they do not live in the same world. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle also lives in a world where the National Assembly unanimously voted for a first resolution, then a second, and then a third.
For years, we have been calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa institutes new spending programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. She supposedly lives in that world, but it does not seem like it because across the way, in their alternative world, the federal government is supposed to be able to manage a hospital, which it has never been able to do properly.
I have the following question for my Conservative colleague. Perhaps the Conservatives will form the government some day; it is hard to say. When that happens, will they agree with the concept and principle of a right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec when the federal government institutes programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec?
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, again, child care is a great example. The Liberal government loves to weasel its way into provincial jurisdiction, and that is what it did with child care, too. Things were fine and everything was in its own little jurisdiction, but no, the Liberals had to meddle, disrupt it and cause chaos. Then, when it fails, they are going to blame the provincial governments. That is the way they operate.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am both shocked and saddened by the member's speech. I am shocked because she mentioned the Conservative government. I lived through, as Canadians did, the shockingly bad years of the Harper regime, with the record deficits each and every year, the bad financial management, the scandals, one after another, and the fact that they gave $30 billion a year in the infamous Harper tax-saving treaties to the wealthy, $300 billion over the course of a dismal decade. There were cuts to health care funding and slashing of veterans' benefits. It was one of the worst periods in Canadian history, and it was certainly the worst government in Canadian history.
I am saddened because the member has seen the benefits of dental care already in her own riding, dozens of people. There were 15,000 seniors in the first three days who got dental treatment. There were dozens in Peterborough—Kawartha. The reality is that 17,000 people would benefit from pharmacare in her riding.
Why does she not listen to the 17,000 constituents who would benefit from pharmacare?
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is sad for me is a New Democratic Party that props up the Prime Minister so he can stay in power. If the member listened to anything I said and if he really cared about the most vulnerable and the disability benefit, he should know that the record-high use of food banks in history is because New Democrats are keeping the Prime Minister in power.
Who is really standing up for people? That is what I would like to know.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for holding the Liberal-NDP government to account on its promises, which in many cases are just marketing projects that are never followed up on with the actual hard work of governing.
Now, my colleague mentioned a couple of times that the pharmacare bill is nothing more than window dressing and that there is nothing in this bill that actually is a pharmacare plan. This is merely a bill to maybe talk about a plan to maybe talk about a pharmacare plan maybe later down the road.
The NDP is championing this legislation as such a big win for them, just to keep the Prime Minister in power. Is there anything actually in this legislation that promises Canadians any change or additional access to health care or health care products?
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, I love that question, and the answer is no.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is what I am worried about. This bill talks about contraceptive medication. In particular, when we talk about a woman's right to choose, what I am worried about is that the Conservative Party of Canada—