Oh, oh!
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
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I continue to be heckled by members of a caucus that has a perfect score with the Abortion Rights Coalition for being anti-choice, I think they are demonstrating exactly who they are.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to support what the NDP has fought for. It is the beginning of a pharmacare plan that will start with one of the things the NDP has championed for years: the reproductive rights of women and people who menstruate. It is a significant step forward to promote reproductive rights for women and gender-diverse people in Canada; we know, for far too long, leaders have neglected calls to improve reproductive health services. In this room today, I have heard Conservatives saying such things as that we already pay for abortion; they know very well that even the Liberal government still does not provide access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care. We are talking about the gamut of reproductive rights; that includes the ability, if one so chooses, to access contraception.
I used to be a high school sex ed teacher. One thing we would talk to the kids about was choice and how to protect themselves and their reproductive rights should they want to avoid pregnancy. I know there are Conservatives smiling because the discussion around sex, abortion and contraception is a difficult one, but these are important open discussions that we have to have, especially as we change into a society that is becoming much more inclusive in our gender diversity. I support that. The bill would allow nine million people of reproductive age in Canada to access contraception, providing them with reproductive autonomy and reducing the risk of unintended pregnancies.
However, we know that bodily autonomy is currently under attack. We have heard in the House, in fact, petitions that have been put on the floor by the Conservative Party that attack the trans community. The March for Life is happening on Thursday, and I wonder which Conservative faces we will see again this year at the campaign. Just as the colleague across the way said, the Campaign Life Coalition has labelled the Conservatives anti-choice. This is not surprising, because in this very session of Parliament, Bill C-311 was named a backdoor anti-abortion legislation in the name of so-called violence, even though it was not supported by any women's groups working with women and gender-diverse people who are experiencing violence.
The bill is also a major win for promoting the rights of economic empowerment for women and gender-diverse people in Canada. We have a right to choose what we want to do with our own bodies. I find it disturbing that, in 2024, most of the people opposing the bill in the House on the Conservative side are not even impacted by it. I do not know many men in the House who have to run to the drugstore to get birth control pills or have to use diaphragms or IUDs. This is a gender-specific issue for women and gender-diverse people. It is really appalling, because the very Conservative opposition that is talking about freedom, with a leader who talks about freedom, does not believe in freedom when it comes to bodily autonomy. The member for Carleton does not believe in freedom of religion, with the kind of Islamophobic, visceral garbage I have to hear on that side. Now they are directly attacking women's right to choose.
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, you certainly have given lots of advice on people not impugning other members with motives. I think the member has gone quite far enough, and I would ask if you could return her to the theme of today.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member has not impugned anything. The member is just simply stating what she knows to be true. I do not think there is any motive being impugned here. I just think the Conservatives are slightly offended by what they are hearing.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was eating my dinner in the lobby and was horrified to hear the member throw out these accusations of Islamophobia, which are very serious accusations against members, with no basis. I think that is unparliamentary. The member is providing no support because she is talking utter nonsense. If I were to casually say that a member is anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or anti-Christian, I think you would find that unparliamentary. I hope you will call that member to order.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, these are obviously not points of order. I think the member should continue her speech.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I completely agree with my colleague from Kitchener Centre. Let the member for Winnipeg Centre speak, and hopefully the Conservatives will not provoke any more interruptions.
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I will just remind everyone to be careful in what they say about one another and to make sure that we stay within the parliamentary rules of this institution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will give some examples. We are talking about facts, so I am going to give some examples.
This is from rabble.ca. It is entitled, “The inconvenient anti-choice record of 'pro-choice' Pierre Poilievre”. The Abortion Rights Coalition—
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order. It is against the rules to use someone's name in the chamber. Just make sure we do not use the names of members, and let us not use props.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, my apologies, but I am actually reading, and my understanding in the House is that we are allowed to read from notes.
The article states, “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice members of Parliament and has always rated Pierre Poilievre as anti-choice and continues to do—
Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order. Let us all take a big, deep breath.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, let us back that up one more time.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton. I am so sorry. That is totally my fault, and I take responsibility. My apologies, but I am reading verbatim.
The article reads that the coalition has always rated the member as “anti-choice and continues to do so.” It continues to say, “he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception”.
Here are some examples: “There's just too many other reasons to doubt [the member for Carleton's] pro-choice claims”. “Like Erin O’Toole, [the member for Carleton] would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote.”
On Bill C-311, which is likened to an anti-abortion bill, the entire Conservative Party, including the member for Carleton, voted in favour.
That is in this Parliament, so it is not surprising to me, when we are talking about an opportunity to lift up the rights of women and gender diverse people, to lift up equality, to support a person's right to choose and to have access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care, that the Conservatives are violently opposing this legislation. Why? It is because they do not care about reproductive rights. In fact, they have actively voted against reproductive rights.
The fact is that Conservatives are going against the pharmacare bill and are talking about insurance plans. There are a lot of people in this country who do not have insurance plans, which tells me how out of touch the Conservatives are with people who are struggling. These are the people who are struggling and who they talk about all the time. They are working, not for a living wage, and have no benefits and no pension plans. They not only have fought against this benefit, should they have diabetes or should they choose to not want to get pregnant, but also have actively fought against a living wage, often in marginalized jobs, often taken up by women in marginalized communities.
Do members want to talk about freedom? It is freedom only if it suits the Conservatives' narrow, and what has been likened by some, certainly in the media, extremist rhetoric. These are things like the member for Carleton endorsing Jordan Peterson, who is anti-trans, anti-choice and anti-women.
Therefore, it is not surprising that in a bill that focuses on specifically lifting up equality in Canada, the Conservatives are conveniently fighting against it in the name of so-called “choice”. By them denying individuals' access to contraception or to the morning after pill, they are denying freedom to make a choice over one's body. This includes banning medications from young people who are transitioning, young trans kids. We need to protect trans kids. We need to protect women's rights, and we need to protect the right to choose.