The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

Pharmacare Act

An Act respecting pharmacare

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Sponsor

Mark Holland  Liberal

Status

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.

Similar bills

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, 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.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, the opposition needs to be more forthcoming and be a little more direct and frank with Canadians.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I want to remind the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill that, if he has questions and comments, he should wait for the appropriate time and not try to contribute to the debate until such time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-64.

We have heard some doozies over the last day. Of course, today is budget day, so we will hear some more doozies about the billions upon billions that will be spent and heaped on the backs of taxpayers.

One of the reasons it is such a great honour to speak to Bill C-64 is that I get a chance to split my time with the newly minted Conservative member for Durham. Finally, we have a true blue Conservative in Durham, and I cannot wait to hear his speech. I believe it may be his maiden speech today. He is a great member of Parliament. If anybody has not heard his story, it is a true testament that a person can do anything they want if they set their mind to it and do not accept the barriers that life has placed before them. He is a cancer survivor. He was ruled illiterate in grade school and then went to Yale School of Law just seven years later. I am so honoured to share a bench and split my time with my colleague from Durham.

We are speaking about Bill C-64, which is yet another promise or plan of the Prime Minister's to hold onto whatever shreds of power he has. It is essentially a power grab, again. We will be talking a little about some of this announcement, as well some of the other failed announcements that the Prime Minister and his “speNDP” coalition have undertaken in the last four or five years.

From the onset, I will say that I believe that if a Canadian needs medication, we should be doing everything in our power to make sure they have access to the medications they need. However, this bill is not a pharmacare bill. It is a plan or a promise to work towards a bigger pharmacare system. Where did we hear that previously? Oh, that was with the dental care plan that we saw earlier, and now we are hearing that less than 10% of dentists across our country are signing up to it. It is a failed system. I will have more on that as we go further.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that over 97% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of drug coverage. Over 27 million Canadians rely on privately administered workplace plans. I spoke with insurers who have no idea how this pharmacare plan would work. Are they to scrap their plans altogether? What happens to those 27 million Canadians who already have a plan?

Despite what the health minister said, that he has a great working relationship with Quebec, that was proven wrong time and time again. I believe it was the Quebec health minister who went public to say that there are no talks and that they do not agree with what the federal minister is saying regarding health care. We have seen this time and again with the Liberal government.

Going back to 2015, the member for Papineau campaigned on doing things differently. He campaigned on having the most open and transparent government in the history of our country. Wow. The one thing he has accomplished is having the most scandal-plagued government in the history of our country, and the NDP coalition is complicit in the cover-up of those scandals.

The pharmacare bill is just another in a long list of bills that allowed the Liberals to get in front of the cameras and say they are getting things done for Canadians, when they are really just trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Now, the Liberals and the NDP will stand up, pound their fists and say how bad Stephen Harper was in the dark years of Stephen Harper. Here is a news flash. The Liberals have been in power for nine years. If it was a priority for them, then they could have gotten it done. They had a majority, and now they have a majority with the NDP, so they could get things done if they really wanted to get things done.

Bill C-64 is nothing more than a photo op; that is it. It does not actually do anything concrete. It talks about, “to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare”. In other words, it is just another broken election promise. Why does the government not work with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of all drugs to Canadians? That is a novel idea, but nothing is mentioned in there. All we get are future promises and no plan. Let us really, truly be honest with Canadians. This is a not a pharmacare plan; it is an empty promise that will not even come close to covering every medication that Canadians use.

I spoke about promises. We have heard that Nova Scotia has a bit of plan. We heard that Quebec, obviously, has a plan and was not even consulted on how it has done it. My province of B.C. has the fair pharmacare plan. As a matter of fact, we have 12 plans under that one plan for British Columbians who have trouble accessing medication.

What the Liberals have proven time and again is that, after eight years, they neither trust nor respect Canadians. Apparently, they also think that Canadians are too foolish to see through the truth that is right before their eyes. The truth is that after eight long, miserable years, the NDP-Liberal government is simply not worth the cost. We say that time and time again. With this government, the choice is between costly programs and future promises, or should I say false promises, and Canadians know that NDP-Liberal promises never come true.

After eight long years of this Prime Minister, there have been so many broken promises. In 2015, he promised affordable housing, and then he doubled the mortgage, rent and down payment costs. It now takes 25 years to save for a down payment on the average home. In Vancouver, a person has to earn almost $250,000 just to afford a home. Most young Canadians believe that they will never be able to afford a home. That used to be the dream; now it is just a nightmare. He promised that the carbon tax would not cost us anything, and now we find out that over 60% of Canadians pay more because of that tax. He doubled the tax; actually, he raised it by 23% on April 1, which was an April Fools' Day joke on all of us.

I talked briefly about dental care, and I want to read something from a dental office in Prince George, which wrote that what has been put out to the public as far as the coverage is totally not true. The dental office said that the government has said to the public is that this is free dental, but that it's nowhere close to being free dental, unfortunately. That's why, they said, there's frustration from patients who are signing up and phoning around. Patients are saying that they have free dental now, and they, the dental offices, have to give them the bad news.

She continued by saying that there hasn't been a whole lot of information released to dentists, and the government won't give any more information until you register. It hasn't been totally honest and transparent with the dentists, and the dentists are leery of signing up. She said that it was confusing for them, because they haven't been getting all the facts, and that until the facts are better explained to dental offices, dentists and owners, they're not going to register for something if they don't know what they're getting involved in.

That is par for the course with this government. Its members stand before the public and the cameras, perhaps with a tissue to their eye; they put their hand on their heart and say that they truly care. However, the reality is that they are not doing the work. We have good people across the way who are actually waking up and seeing the failures and the lies of their front bench.

It is about time that this failed NDP-Liberal coalition moved out of the way so that the member for Carleton, Canada's future prime minister, can start righting the wrongs of the last eight years. It is going to be tough, but we have the team and we are ready to do it.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON

Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree immensely with almost everything from the start to the end of the comments that my colleague made. Of course, I am not going to add to them. I would like to know what he would be doing, what your government would be doing and what your party would be doing, if it had the opportunity to become the government, which I hope it does not, actually, because I look back on the years of the previous Conservative government, and it was a question of taking away and deteriorating health care.

I think the dental program and the pharmacare program are really important to all my constituents. I am not getting the complaints my colleague was mentioning. My constituents are very grateful to have that program and are already using it. I would expect that my colleague has many people in his constituency who would be very glad to be able to access this program. Is he at a point of eventually supporting this program?

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I want to remind the member that a couple of times she actually was directing comments directly to the member, but she did correct herself at the end.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague across the way.

I believe my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who is a former physician, mentioned this earlier. We have to, first, eliminate the wait times Canadians face. For example, six million Canadians cannot get a primary care physician. They cannot get their medication if they need that. We would work with the pharmaceutical companies, writ large, to make sure that we were driving down the costs. We would work with the PMPRB. We may even just revamp the PMPRB so that we would be getting those drugs approved faster. Canadians with rare diseases could get the drugs that their friends and families seem to be getting faster in other countries, and they could be looked after sooner. We would develop a rare disease strategy so that those Canadians struggling with rare diseases could get the help they need when they need it.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives have consistently opposed pharmacare. We heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay highlight that the Conservative deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie, a large pharma company in North America that jacked up its prices on medications for seniors by over 470%. Who really needs pharmacare lobbyists when we have Conservatives here?

I want clarity, because I heard him say, misleading the House, that people in British Columbia are covered for insulin. That is not true.

I am going to give my colleague another chance to clarify that insulin is not free in British Columbia, and in fact, it is a huge cost to many British Columbians, especially working-class British Columbians. Is he going to oppose, for those British Columbians who require insulin, this legislation that would provide them the support they need on life-saving medication, especially when someone loses their job and their deductible is no longer within their affordability level.

I would like some clarification from my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I just want to remind the hon. member that he might want to retract something. He said the hon. member misled the House. He knows he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that statement, but I would like clarification, because my colleague was speaking on behalf of British Columbians, saying that they are fully covered. That is not true.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member withdrew it. He does not need to elaborate. I just asked him to withdraw.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, most of that member's minute-and-a-half-long rant was incomprehensible. I could not understand what he was saying. However, on one comment that he did mention is that they like to point fingers at other groups and lobbyists. I will remind the member that his leader's brother is a lobbyist for a big grocer. They may not like the answer. They obviously do not like the answer, so they are shouting over top—

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:35 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Order.

I want to remind members that they have an opportunity to ask questions, but unless they are being recognized again, they should not be yelling out or trying to ask other questions.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that when we speak the truth here, those members take offence to it, because all they want on the record is their misinformation. They can say everything they want about the Conservatives, but when we fire back at them, they take offence to it.

I hope I did not hurt the member's feelings by not answering, but I am sure we will speak off-line and hug it out afterward. I will end there.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

April 16th, 2024 / 1:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have seen a lot in the House, but since the member could not answer the question, he does not need to attack the emotion of my colleague. He does not need to hug him; he needs to tell the truth. It is a simple thing.