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 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 / 8:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is not the reason why the members of the Conservative Party have difficulty with this bill. The reality is that when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, millions of Canadians will actually have benefits that many of them would never have had without the passage of this legislation. The member might be sympathetic as an individual member, but let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the current far-right leadership of the leader today, does not support national pharmacare in any fashion whatsoever.

The member should not be trying to confuse the debate on this issue, to try to imply that it is some bogus reason as to why they are not supporting it. He might support it individually, but the party, the official opposition, does not.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, at every step of the way, we asked for clarification from the minister and his charges for definitions and terms that were contained within this four-page document. The member would like to stand up, wildly move his hands, speak very loudly and conflate the issues. This is not universal pharmacare. The Liberals are billing it as some “be-all and end-all”, which it is not. The member knows better and he needs to be honest with Canadians.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy speeches from my friend, and I like working with him, but they must be kidding. We see tonight what Conservatives have done in terms of the bill. They had an opportunity to put forward report stage amendments that actually, in their minds at least, would improve the bill; instead, they decided to waste $400,000 of taxpayer money by deleting every single clause of the bill. It is just a complete waste of time at committee. The Conservatives know that many of their amendments were not even in order, and they withdrew a number of them as well. Therefore, I find a bit rich the idea that Conservatives were working in good faith at committee.

I know the member understands his riding. In Quesnel, Williams Lake and Prince George, those folks have been signing up for dental care. Many of them need access to pharmacare. In some cases, the member has constituents who are paying $1,000 a month for diabetes medication, and he is standing in the way of their getting the supports they need. Therefore, will he stand up for his constituents and will he actually say to his Conservative colleagues, “Let us support the bill. Let us get this done so that people with diabetes and people who need contraception can actually have that paid for”?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich from a member who has supported he most costly government in the history of our country at every step of the way. He approved the $61-billion budget that the government announced just recently. At every step of the way, the member has done the bidding of his Liberal coalition. He has covered up scandal after scandal. The member also knows that I stand up for my riding of Cariboo—Prince George and I stand up for British Columbians each and every day because, God only knows, the British Columbians from the NDP do not.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will come back on that. Of course, the NDP members got dental care for British Columbians. They are getting pharmacare for British Columbians, affordable housing and anti-scab legislation, all of the things that the Conservative caucus had been unable to do.

The reality is that Conservative MPs just have not worked very hard. We are not asking that member, who I know is devoted to public service, and the rest of his colleagues to actually lift a finger to deliver pharmacare for their constituents. All we are asking them is to stop standing in the way, stop forcing these meaningless debates like tonight's, with deleting all clauses of the bill, and let the NDP work on behalf of their constituents, so that all British Columbians and all Canadians—

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

I will interrupt the member, just so we have time for the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, there were 43 amendments. Only an NDP member would say that they worked hard for two years and came up with a four-page document. We had 43 amendments, and for five and a half hours we had to listen to a filibuster, as we are tonight.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:30 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important debate. The legislation before us contains the four principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and universality.

Today, I will speak to the principle of appropriateness, which relates to the appropriate prescribing and use of medicines. I will outline the importance of achieving a pan-Canadian strategy on the appropriate use of drugs, which is a key feature of this legislation. Notably, the World Health Organization defines “appropriate use” as follows: “patients receive medications appropriate to their clinical needs, in doses that meet their own individual requirements, for an adequate period of time, and at the lowest cost to them and their community.”

Prescription drugs play a critical role in the day-to-day for Canadians. Every year, over 750 million prescriptions are filled by 18 million people in Canada. It is estimated that in any given month, 55% of adults and 23% of children and youth will take at least one prescription medication. Getting the right medication at the right time can be life-changing. Whether it is receiving a prescription for an inhaler to help an asthmatic patient breathe better or anti-hypertensive medication to bring down blood pressure and decrease the risk of heart attack or stroke, medications have the power to restore health and improve a person's quality of life. However, getting the wrong medication at the wrong time can cause significant unintended harms. In fact, adverse drug events are a leading cause of unplanned hospital visits, contributing to over two million emergency department visits and 700,000 hospital admissions in Canada every year.

Examples of appropriate use and action include an informed conversation between a patient and their health care provider on the best treatment to improve their health, opting to stop a medication that was once helpful and is now causing more harm than good, or a public awareness campaign on how to use antibiotics wisely. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence suggests that inappropriate prescribing and use happen more often than they should. Consider that 21% of adults in Canada between the ages of 40 and 79 are currently taking more than five prescription medications at a time. This is called polypharmacy and it can increase a person's risk of falls by 75%, among other impacts.

Consider the story heard from a clinician about a patient who was taking over 25 different medications, the combined effects of which were taking a serious toll on their health and quality of life. This clinician stressed to us the significant time and effort required to support the patient and caregiver to slowly discontinue the inappropriate medications. A striking takeaway from this conversation was that this case was far from an anomaly in their practice.

Inappropriate prescribing can threaten patient safety and lead to negative health, social and financial impacts. Other significant examples, such as increased antibiotic resistance due to overuse that threatens patient safety, the risks of addiction and overdose from opioid misuse, and many problems and injuries related to the long-term use of sleeping pills, show this issue is widespread.

It is estimated that approximately 1.9 million Canadian seniors regularly use at least one inappropriate medication, which can lead to dizziness, memory problems, hospitalization and even death. The cost of these inappropriate prescriptions is over $419 million per year, and it rises to over $1.4 billion if the costs of hospital visits and the impacts of other harms are included.

Appropriate use was established as a shared priority among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Jurisdictions, health organizations and even local providers have implemented a variety of initiatives and programs to address the issue at hand. There is good work happening across the country, but those doing this important work have called for a unified approach so we can increase its impact and reach.

While there are several pockets of excellence addressing appropriate use, persistent gaps and challenges exist. Inconsistent reach, overlapping efforts and even duplication have limited the scale-up and spread of promising approaches across the health care system, which limits our ability to make these benefits available to people across the country. Without a devoted strategy to better connect our siloed work and improve collaboration, we risk stretching our already limited health system resources, and we will miss an opportunity to serve patients with the highest quality of care.

Other countries around the world have shown us that addressing appropriate use works and makes a difference in the health and safety of their citizens. Countries such as Australia, the U.K. and the Netherlands have developed a coordinated solution that addresses appropriate use at multiple levels and works to ensure that everyone, including patients, prescribers and the public, is motivated to make the necessary changes. In doing so, they have managed to improve prescribing and use behaviours while reducing the harms and health system costs of inappropriate care. Developing and implementing a pan-Canadian strategy that builds on this learning would help expand the impact and reach of successful appropriate use programs to better serve prescribers, patients, and diverse communities across the country.

To date, efforts to improve appropriate use, detect and respond to patient safety issues as they arise have been hampered by the uneven ability of prescribing data. This has significantly limited the supports available to patients and prescribers to make the best decisions regarding their care. Support to enhance the collection of and access to prescribing data will need to underpin any strategy. Addressing appropriate use of prescription drugs also presents a unique opportunity to tackle some of the most topical challenges facing our health system, such as appropriate therapies for mental health; access to safe, long-term care; and optimizing primary care.

The prescribing of antipsychotics in long-term care is a prime example where, at any given time, it is estimated that nearly one in four long-term care residents was receiving an antipsychotic drug while having no clinical reason for its use. These medications put patients at increased risk of falls, fractures and even strokes. Ultimately, healthier patients and fewer adverse drug events puts less stress on our health professionals and health care system.

Patients, health care providers and partners all agree that now is the time to act, and a pan-Canadian appropriate use strategy would bring the vision into reality. This means directing efforts towards implementing widespread programs and initiatives, collaborating closely to make meaningful change, ensuring that health policy promotes positive actions and bolstering evaluation of programs so we can scale and spread those programs that we know would make a difference.

We are already getting started. Last spring, the Canadian drug agency transition office established an appropriate use advisory committee, comprising organizations, prescribers, patients, insurers and health system partners, to provide guidance and advice for the development of a pan-Canadian appropriate use strategy. The committee will soon issue its final report. It is also working closely with key partners, including Choosing Wisely Canada and the Canadian Medication Appropriateness and Deprescribing Network to better coordinate existing efforts to further enhance its impact.

New health challenges continue to emerge, and the need for a coordinated appropriate use strategy to enhance quality of care, improve patient health and promote the judicious and equitable use of health care resources has become even more critical. Members can see that this strategy, guided by the CDA, would be an important element of moving forward with national pharmacare. Addressing appropriate use on a national scale would confront these challenges, knitting together our existing patchwork of programs to provide much-needed support for patients and prescribers while improving safety and outcomes, ultimately reducing the cost of burdens caused by inappropriate care.

We look forward to working closely with patients, prescribers, health partners and jurisdictions in making the program a reality.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all Canadians such as physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who are listening and who are out there prescribing medications this evening, I find it fascinating that the member would be suggesting that their appropriateness is actually inappropriate and that we need the government now to tell physicians what to prescribe.

Think about someone with hypertension, sitting in their family doctor's office if they are fortunate enough not to be one of the seven million people without a family doctor. What is the family doctor going to do? Are they going to call the “1-800-who-cares” phone number provided by the people who cannot even get them a passport, and wait on hold while they say which medication should be prescribed? I find that to be an absolutely terrifying prospect for Canada's incredibly well-trained frontline prescribers in this country who have the independent ability to make those decisions, the best decisions on behalf of the patients, many of whom they have known for an incredibly long time.

Maybe the member could answer this: Would they now be setting up a 1-800 number for doctors to ask which medication should be prescribed? Perhaps, as I mentioned, they could call it “1-800-who-cares”.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by first saying hello to my 10-year-old boy, who is watching. I know it is past his bedtime, but his mommy has given him an opportunity to hear daddy speak.

Second, I would like to say that is not what I said in my speech. Maybe the member should consult a hearing doctor. Why am I not surprised by the question from my Conservative colleague? Pharmacare, for example, is about access to contraceptives for women, which is clearly not within the priorities of the opposition party. My colleague opposite and his party have shown every woman in Canada that when it comes to contraception, they are on their own.

Canadians are listening, and by now they know that when it comes to health care, they cannot trust the Conservatives, just like when the member said, making fun of the 1-800 number, “Who cares?”

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:45 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, it has been disappointing to listen to the debate and how partisan it has been. I wonder whether the member can remind us of what the bill would do. As this is just the beginning of getting universal pharmacare started, what would the legislation do to ensure that more work is done to improve on it as time goes on?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, we know very well where the members of the official opposition stands on the bill. Obviously they are against it. They do not care, and it is very easy for them to be critical about it.

I thank my colleague for the tremendous work they did in shaping the bill with the government. We both understand how important it is. For example, contraceptive drugs were chosen as part of the next step in universal pharmacare specifically because contraception improves the equality of all women when they are able to receive proper care for their needs. It reduces the risk of unintended pregnancies and improves reproductive rights. Also, the bill would help all diabetic patients access proper care and be well treated.

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:45 p.m.

Ottawa Centre Ontario

Liberal

Yasir Naqvi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I think throughout the debate on Bill C-64, whether at second reading stage or at committee, we have seen nothing but fearmongering on the part of the Conservatives, for a simple reason: They do not support the bill. They do not want Canadians to have pharmacare. In fact, they support a private health care system. That is why they have chosen every which way to put up blockades against the bill by inventing stuff. We heard the member opposite, the health critic for the official opposition, throughout the committee process make things up while witnesses kept telling him that was not the case. He is still repeating the same mistruths.

I want to ask the member, who gave an excellent speech, this: How does he feel the legislation, if passed by Parliament, would help his constituents get the medications they so deserve and need?

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, through our bilateral health agreements with the provinces and territories for the Canadian dental care plan and now pharmacare, we are delivering on the promise that every Canadian deserves better health care.

Thanks to this plan, nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians across the country will be able to access the contraception and reproductive autonomy they deserve.

In addition, it will help 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes get the medication and resources they need. Canadians should never have to choose between their health and their—

Motions in AmendmentPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 30th, 2024 / 8:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

Give a foot; take a mile. I should know better. I wish your son good night. I am sure he was happy to see his dad working tonight.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.