Bill C-64

Pharmacare Act

An Act respecting pharmacare

Sponsor

Mark Holland  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, 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.

Similar bills

C-340 (current session) Canada Pharmacare Act
C-213 (43rd Parliament, 2nd session) Canada Pharmacare Act
C-213 (43rd Parliament, 1st session) Canada Pharmacare Act

Elsewhere

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:

C-64 (2017) Law Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act
C-64 (2015) Law Georges Bank Protection Act
C-64 (2013) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2013-14
C-64 (2009) Law Appropriation Act No. 4, 2009-2010

Votes

June 3, 2024 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare
May 30, 2024 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare
May 30, 2024 Failed Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare (report stage amendment)
May 7, 2024 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare
May 7, 2024 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare (reasoned amendment)
May 6, 2024 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

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 aims to establish a framework for a national pharmacare program in Canada, beginning with universal, single-payer coverage for certain contraceptives and diabetes medications, with the goal of improving access, affordability, and health outcomes. The bill also calls for the creation of a national formulary and bulk purchasing strategy, while emphasizing the need to collaborate with provinces and territories for the administration of healthcare. The legislation has sparked debate over its potential impact on existing private insurance plans, its limited scope of coverage, and the extent of provincial consultation.

Liberal

  • Supports national pharmacare: The Liberal Party supports Bill C-64, seeing it as a significant step toward establishing a national pharmacare program in Canada. They view it as a means to ensure Canadians have access to necessary medications, regardless of their ability to pay.
  • Focus on access and affordability: The Liberals emphasize the importance of improving access to and affordability of prescription drugs. They cite statistics showing that many Canadians lack sufficient insurance coverage for medications, forcing them to choose between healthcare and basic necessities.
  • Working with provinces: The Liberal Party highlights the importance of collaboration with provinces and territories in implementing the national pharmacare program. They aim to work with these partners to provide universal single-payer coverage for contraceptives and diabetes medications.
  • Cost saving potential: The Liberals believe that a national pharmacare program has the potential to generate long-term savings for the healthcare system. They argue that the current system, with its patchwork of private and public plans, is inefficient and costly.
  • Appropriate drug use: The Liberal Party also focuses on the principle of appropriate drug use within the pharmacare framework. They stress the importance of a pan-Canadian strategy to ensure that patients receive the right medications at the right time and in the correct dosages, while minimizing potential harms and costs.

Conservative

  • Flawed legislation: The Conservatives believe the bill is flawed and cannot be fixed, and that the only proper fix is to bury it. The bill has been rushed through the House without proper scrutiny, and the government is trying to tout the pamphlet as being historic and groundbreaking, when the Liberals neglected to listen to the very people who would be most impacted by the shoddy work of the file.
  • Interfering in provincial jurisdiction: The Conservatives believe that the bill interferes in provincial jurisdictions and that it was born of the Liberals' need to keep a minority government alive. The bill is an attempt by the Liberal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions without consultation.
  • Inadequate coverage: The Conservatives argue that the bill does not provide universal pharmacare, and that it only covers contraception and diabetes medications. This limited coverage is not what Canadians were expecting, and that it is an empty promise.
  • Risk to private insurance: The Conservatives believe that the bill would replace the private insurance system with a single insurance system, which would be a federal monopoly administered by a centralizing and incompetent Liberal government. The bill risks disrupting existing prescription drug coverage paid for by employers, limiting choice, and using scarce federal resources to simply replace existing coverage while leaving a huge gap for uninsured Canadians who rely on other medications beyond diabetic drugs and contraceptives.

NDP

  • Supporting pharmacare bill: The NDP supports the pharmacare bill as a means to provide essential medication to Canadians who struggle to afford it. They view it as a way to help people like Amber, who struggles to pay for her diabetes medication, and see it as a significant step towards universal healthcare.
  • Criticism of Conservative opposition: The NDP criticizes the Conservative party for what they view as obstructionist tactics, such as attempting to delete the entire bill and wasting taxpayer money on debates, rather than working to help people access necessary medications. They contrast this with what they see as Conservative priorities of supporting corporations and banks.
  • Building on NDP successes: The NDP highlights their role in forcing the government to implement dental care and aims to replicate this success with pharmacare. They emphasize the positive impact of dental care on seniors and express their determination to provide similar support for medication costs.
  • Indigenous access concerns: The NDP acknowledges concerns that the bill may not go far enough for Indigenous peoples and emphasizes the need for immediate discussions to ensure that First Nations, Inuit, and Northerners see improved healthcare closer to home. They want to avoid the pitfalls of the Non-Insured Health Benefits program.

Bloc

  • Opposes federal intrusion: The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill, arguing it represents federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. They advocate for unconditional financial transfers to Quebec to improve its existing pharmacare program.
  • Quebec's existing system: The Bloc emphasizes that Quebec already has a mixed insurance system that covers a wide range of drugs. They argue that federal involvement duplicates efforts and is less efficient than improving Quebec's existing framework.
  • Amendment rejected: The Bloc proposed an amendment that would allow provinces to opt out of the national pharmacare program with full compensation, but it was rejected. They see this as a violation of the Canadian Constitution and Quebec's right to manage its own affairs.
  • Fiscal imbalance: The Bloc raises the issue of fiscal imbalance, stating that the provinces have insufficient financial resources compared to the federal government. They contend that Quebec is chronically underfunded and should receive its share of federal funds to manage its own social programs.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.

As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.

This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.

It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Bloc Québécois refuses to listen to what Quebeckers are saying.

A large coalition, the largest in Quebec, made up of two million Quebeckers, major unions and community groups, said that Quebeckers applauded the federal government's Bill C‑64.

They said the following:

Never before have we come so close to implementing a real public, universal pharmacare program. The hybrid public-private system in place in Quebec creates a two-tiered system that is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.

While criticizing the system, they also said this:

We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.

That is the message that Quebeckers are sending to the Bloc Québécois. It is a bit like dental care, where the largest percentage of people advocating for dental care are Quebeckers.

Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to listen to Quebeckers?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, there are dissenting voices in every society. There are debates in every society. However, Quebec's voice is heard in the Quebec National Assembly, which is made up of 125 members who are elected by the people.

My NDP colleague's leader had the nerve to send a letter to Quebec's health minister. He literally told the health minister that he wanted a meeting with him, that he wanted to educate him and teach him how pharmacare works.

Do members know how Quebec's democracy responded? First, he was told to take a hike, because it was deeply disrespectful and ridiculous. Then, Quebec's democracy unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly denouncing this kind of paternalistic attitude, which is, and always will be, unacceptable.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech.

I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications.

Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.

One thing is for certain: If the federal government has money for the provinces to cover more drugs, then perhaps even more drugs could be covered if the money is sent to the provinces and they are given the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can expand programs with existing infrastructure.

However, Ottawa has this bad habit of creating structures, bureaucracy and new layers of all sorts of things that cost a lot of money. Then we end up with dental care plans like the Liberal plan that ultimately involves the private sector, which runs counter to the very principle of the Canada Health Act if it were subject to it. That is what we end up with. These are failures after failures.

What is the point of all this? It is about campaigning for the Liberals and the NDP.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

Hochelaga Québec

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada LiberalMinister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Madam Speaker, I am also from Quebec and I fully respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

I have a question for my colleague. Does he not know that, right now in Quebec, IUD fittings, for example, are not covered by insurance? Women have to pay every month for their method of contraception, which costs between $20 and $30. Many women choose not to take contraceptives.

Why not simply join a program that will give all women free access to their choice of contraception?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, my best regards to the minister. I thank her for her very good question.

I will use the same wording to answer. Does she not know that Quebec is asking for health transfers? Does she not know that Quebec needs unconditional transfers? Does she not know about the health care funding deficit? Does she not know that if Ottawa stopped saying no to health transfers, we might not be where we are today?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by just taking a moment to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America and the rule of law that has prevailed this evening. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Justice will be done in the United States, and a serial criminal, who has committed many crimes but never had to pay the price, will finally be behind bars in a matter of a few months.

I send my regards to the citizens of the United States. Tonight, the verdict is in, and Donald Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts. Finally, we see justice being served in the United States.

There are Conservatives who admire this convicted criminal. I think it is important and very relevant to the debate tonight that Conservatives have imposed five hours of debate, at a cost to Canadians of $400,000. This is being spent on a debate that Conservatives have put forward—

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I just want to remind members that if they have questions or comments, or if they are not interested in listening to the debate, they should ensure that they hold off until it is the appropriate time or step out of the chamber and come back when they are interested in listening to the debate.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I would also suggest to Conservative members that they should not be drinking and coming into the House. It is not a good combination, and it does not look good on them. The reality is—

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been in this chamber for a very long time and knows that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. To assert that Conservative members are drinking and coming into the chamber intoxicated is incredibly unparliamentary. I would ask that he withdraw those comments.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am not sure exactly what is being done. If the hon. members could stick to the subject matter that is before the House, the House will run much more smoothly. I do not think that putting accusations forward is proper.

I would just ask the member to withdraw so that we can continue.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, it was not an allegation, but advice, and that is quite a different matter.