This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
Summary
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.
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
Support for universal pharmacare: The Liberal party supports Bill C-64 as a step towards national universal pharmacare. They believe that access to medication is a key component of healthcare and should be based on need, not ability to pay.
Focus on affordability: The Liberals aim to reduce the financial burden on Canadians, particularly those with chronic illnesses like diabetes. They highlight that many Canadians are struggling to afford essential medicines, leading to negative health outcomes and increased healthcare costs.
Emphasis on prevention: The party emphasizes the importance of prevention, particularly regarding universal access to contraception. They believe it saves money in the long run by preventing unwanted pregnancies and improving women's reproductive health and autonomy.
Collaboration with provinces: Liberals see collaboration with provinces and territories as essential for successful implementation. They want to reduce jurisdictional barriers and ensure all Canadians have equal access to necessary medications, while respecting provincial healthcare administration.
Conservative
Provincial jurisdiction infringed: Multiple members stated that pharmacare falls under provincial jurisdiction. They criticized the federal government for interfering in provincial affairs and not adequately consulting with provinces and territories before introducing the bill.
Inadequate existing plans: Some Conservative members noted that a high percentage of Canadians already have some form of drug coverage, suggesting the bill addresses a limited need. They questioned whether the proposed plan would be as comprehensive or beneficial as existing private plans.
Just a Liberal-NDP deal: Several members asserted the bill is primarily a political maneuver to maintain the NDP-Liberal coalition, rather than a genuine effort to improve healthcare. They accused the NDP of compromising its principles for a superficial achievement.
Fiscal irresponsibility: Conservatives raised concerns about the cost of the bill, estimating that it would create a new government agency costing millions to establish and operate. They criticized the government's overall fiscal management and questioned whether the program is sustainable given the country's debt.
Implementation failures foreseen: Referencing the dental care program, members expressed skepticism about the government's ability to implement the pharmacare plan effectively. They cited low enrollment rates among dentists and lack of consultation with relevant stakeholders as reasons for concern.
Amendment proposed: Stephen Ellis put forward an amendment to decline the bill, asserting it does nothing to address the healthcare crisis and will instead offer Canadians an inferior pharmacare plan that covers less, costs more and builds up a massive new bureaucracy that Canadians can't afford.
NDP
Strong support for bill C-64: The NDP strongly supports Bill C-64, viewing it as a significant step towards universal pharmacare and a victory for their advocacy. They emphasize that the bill addresses critical healthcare gaps, particularly for diabetes medication and contraception, and will improve the lives of many Canadians.
Criticism of Conservative opposition: The NDP criticizes the Conservative party for opposing the bill, accusing them of being out of touch with the needs of their constituents and of prioritizing the interests of big pharma over the health of Canadians. They highlight the Conservatives' attempts to block the bill and suggest this stems from ideological extremism and a lack of consultation with those who would benefit from it.
Focus on women's health: The NDP emphasizes the importance of the bill in promoting women's health and reproductive rights by providing access to affordable contraception. They condemn efforts to control women's bodies and highlight the need for gender equity in healthcare, accusing the Conservatives of endangering women's rights.
Economic benefits of pharmacare: The NDP underscores the economic benefits of universal pharmacare, citing potential savings to the healthcare system and individual Canadians through bulk purchasing and reduced emergency care. They argue that investing in preventative care through pharmacare is financially sound and will lead to a healthier population.
Bloc
Quebec's jurisdiction: The Bloc Québécois staunchly defends Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over health matters and its existing prescription drug insurance plan. They insist that Quebec should not be forced to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan.
Full compensation: The party demands full financial compensation from the federal government if a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is implemented. The compensation should be without conditions.
Against federal interference: The Bloc views the federal government's approach as heavy-handed and disrespectful, criticizing the lack of consultation and the potential duplication of existing structures in Quebec. They believe the federal government should focus on managing its own jurisdictions competently before interfering in provincial matters.
Opt-out right: The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to pharmacare in principle, as it already exists in Quebec, but insists on Quebec's right to opt out of the federal plan with full compensation, ensuring that Quebec's system is not dismantled or its coverage reduced.
