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
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.
I would like to ask the member about how something as simple as monitoring diabetes and testing sugar levels, which can prevent hospitalization and the additional costs that can occur due to hospitalization when people do not have this equipment to be able to take care of themselves at home. I would also like to ask, if he has a few moments, if he could talk about oral contraceptives for women.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, we know that almost four million Canadians have a form of diabetes, and we want to prevent their condition from deteriorating and their ending up in the hospital, which costs our hospital system even more. We want to prevent that, which is a big piece in Bill C-64.
Obviously, with contraceptives, we know that there are women out there who may not be able to afford the cost. We would be there to assist those individuals, especially the most vulnerable, in our country.
Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity
Mr. Speaker, reproductive and sexual rights are human rights. Our government recognizes that, and we stand by it as a matter of principle. Members of the Conservative Party caucus can stand in the House and say they are not interested in pursuing anti-abortion legislation that would infringe upon women's reproductive rights; however, sadly, that conviction is far from a universally held one in the caucus. In fact, the entire caucus has been designated as anti-choice by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.
I am proud to say that, on this side, we are walking the walk. We are leading by example and putting forward Bill C-64, an act representing pharmacare, which would provide universal access to prescribed contraceptives to Canadians. In collaboration with provinces and territories, we will support universal coverage of contraceptive medications and devices so that nine million Canadians of reproductive age will have access to the contraception that they need and deserve. This will ensure that Canadian women can choose whether they are going to have children. It will give them greater control over their bodies and their futures.
Currently, Canada is one of the only countries in the world where access to health care is universal but access to contraceptives is not. Women therefore have a more limited range of options, and are more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies, which can impact their lives.
Access to safe, reliable birth control is essential. It gives women the freedom to plan their families and pursue their long-term goals and dreams. Unintended pregnancies, on the other hand, can cause a great number of negative health and economic impacts on families. At present, coverage for contraceptives varies across the country. Most Canadians rely on private drug insurance through their employer for their medication needs, and some populations are disproportionately affected by the lack of coverage.
Women, people with low incomes and young people, all of whom are more likely to work in part-time or contract positions, often lack access to private coverage, and only a fraction of Canadians are eligible for prescription birth control at low or no cost through a public drug plan. When a person pays out-of-pocket for their contraceptive needs, regardless of whether they have coverage, cost has been identified as the single most important barrier to accessing contraceptive medications or devices that they require.
One study showed that women from low-income households are more likely to use less effective contraceptives, or no contraceptives at all. Cost is a significant obstacle to gaining access to more effective forms of contraception.
For example, oral contraceptives cost approximately $25 per unit, or $300 per year. In comparison, intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are often more effective and last up to five years, but they have an upfront cost of approximately $500 per unit. IUDs are a much more effective method of contraception, since they have a low failure rate of 0.2%, compared with that of oral contraceptive pills, which is 9%. Furthermore, they do not require daily doses to remain effective, which is a long-standing challenge with the pill.
At this time, I would also point out that women can have the choice, but sometimes, it is not so much a matter of choice; it is a matter of how a woman's body reacts to these various interventions. It really should be a matter of choosing not based on cost, but based on what works best for them. If someone is a young woman in their twenties, working at a part-time job that does not offer private coverage, accessing an IUD or other contraceptive method can be a big cost when trying to manage other basic life expenses, such as rent or grocery bills.
As colleagues can see, this is the reality that many Canadians are currently facing and trying to manage. We have decided to intervene and help. Bill C-64 would address the lack of access by working with provinces and territories to provide universal coverage of contraceptive medications and devices, so Canadians can access the contraceptives they need. Furthermore, some provinces are already paving the way; this is similar to how Saskatchewan led the way by implementing universal health care in the 1960s. Last year, British Columbia became the first province to provide universal access to contraceptives to their residents. Recently, Manitoba also announced a commitment to implementing universal contraceptive coverage in their province. I would join my colleague in clapping.
There is a certain trend I see, with certain provinces offering these services to Canadians. What is that common trend? I think we can leave it to our imagination, but it tends to be parties that are left of centre, that are more progressive and that are willing to step in and help where people need it most. Studies from the United Kingdom show that universal access to contraceptives provided a return on investment in health and social services of nine to one for every investment in universal contraceptive access.
In the Canadian context, evidence from the University of British Columbia estimated that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year.
We commit to working with those provinces and the others in Canada to ensure that everyone in Canada has universal access to contraceptives.
This new coverage, to be delivered by provinces and territories that enter into a bilateral agreement with the Government of Canada, means that Canadians would be able to receive the contraceptives they choose, no matter where they live or how much they earn. In turn, Canadians will be healthier; they will be empowered to make important life decisions, and they will not have to opt for less-effective or less-desirable methods of contraception because of the cost of this essential medicine.
We will work with provinces and territories to provide Canadians with universal coverage for contraception. This is just the first phase of a national pharmacare plan, which can show how much of an impact universal coverage for contraception and, indeed, more than just contraception, will have on the lives of Canadians and further enshrine reproductive choice in Canada.
In closing, we look forward to working with all parliamentarians to pass the pharmacare act so that all Canadians can have reproductive choice and rights and get the contraception they need and deserve.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite opened his speech by talking about the morning-after pill. Does he know that, in his province of Ontario, that is already covered? With respect to all the money that is going into protecting women from going full term in pregnancy, would the government instead, or in addition, at some point choose to direct the funding towards in vitro fertilization?
Our birth rate in Canada is lamentably low. Rather than focusing on wiping out or tapering off the population, would they consider helping women to have babies?
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a shameful display of the type of anti-choice rhetoric that happens in the House far too often with Conservatives. The facts remain: Women want the right to choose. They want the right to choose how to have their bodies, and—
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order. Ask questions, get answers and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can find all the excuses that they want to deny women access to free contraceptives, whether it has—
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I continue to be heckled by a caucus that has a perfect score with the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada as being completely anti-choice. They can deal with that on their own time. We will stand with Canadians. We will stand with women, and we will stand for women's rights and reproductive rights.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us bring a little bit of cheer to all this by asking questions about the content.
I would like the member to tell me whether he thinks that the child care program is working well in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We know that the federal government recognized Quebec's jurisdiction and its right to opt out of that program with full compensation.
Does my colleague not believe that the pharmacare program could also work just as well if the federal government were to respect Quebec's expertise and jurisdiction by simply transferring the money?
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is true that Quebec is a leader in Canada in many areas, including women's rights and reproduction.
It is important to recognize when a province or territory is a leader or ahead of its time when it comes to important, progressive issues. The federal government must consider all of its options to create a level playing field.
To level the playing field, it is important that we find ways to ensure that great ideas in provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia are shared by all Canadians.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, as I have heard in the House tonight, I know the Conservatives think providing free contraception is communist, but I would like to say this to the hon. member across the way: They talk about reproductive rights, but in New Brunswick, one cannot even access a trauma-informed abortion at care. We have a Canada Health Act that they have to uphold, and I am glad that the member supports that, but his government actually does not support action. It is one thing to say that we support the right to a safe, trauma-informed abortion, but it is another thing to provide access to that right.
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member opposite for her intervention tonight, because it underscores the importance of electing good provincial government and the necessity to look at provinces' leadership, read their platforms very carefully and consider who they are. They demonstrate exactly who they are, whether it is their approach in New Brunswick or, frankly, in Alberta, to how they support LGBTQS+ kids. The position on abortion in New Brunswick has been demonstrated very clearly. Canadians know what they get when they elect Conservative governments in Canada: a questioning of the enshrined rights of women.