Pharmacare Act

An Act respecting pharmacare

Sponsor

Mark Holland  Liberal

Status

In committee (Senate), as of June 18, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-64.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

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

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:35 p.m.
See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague across the way at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. There are other folks on the committee and I really enjoy working with all of them, even across party lines, believe it or not.

The Conservatives are talking about voting against free contraception in this plan. There is no question that they are anti-choice. All the members have been listed as anti-choice, but they also voted against the school food program and pushed against the national child care program. The Conservative Party does not seem to be supportive of equity in this country.

Supporting this bill is so important. I am wondering if they are really serious about advancing the rights of women, or if maybe they just want women and gender-diverse people to stay in the dark ages.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:35 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my NDP colleague's work on the status of women committee. She is a true champion for women.

I have appreciated in the debate this evening how she keeps bringing up the word “abortion”, because in this country, we have to worry about the rights of women in terms of their bodies, their right to choose, being taken away. We constantly see legislation proposed by the Conservatives that would restrict a woman's right to choose.

I stand with the member for Winnipeg Centre across the aisle on the right of women to choose for their own bodies.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:35 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Madam Speaker, Bill C-64 is a classic example of the legislation the Liberal government has brought before this Parliament. Once again, it has over-promised and under-delivered.

When the leader of the NDP sold his party's soul and coincidentally guaranteed that he would receive a pension for his efforts, many people thought he got too little for it. New Democrats did not even get 30 pieces of silver, as they betrayed their ideal and the Canadian people.

What has this betrayal cost Canadians? Inflation continues at record levels, fuelled by the carbon tax. Housing costs have doubled. Health care has vanished. Food bank use is at record levels. The immigration system is broken. Our military suffers from neglect, and foreign governments try to influence our elections. The Liberal response is to shrug. Canada has become a joke on the world stage.

What does the NDP receive for this blind support of the Prime Minister and his disastrous policies? It receives a promise to look at what it would take to establish a national pharmacare program. It is not even that, really.

Canadians thought a pharmacare plan would cover their drug costs. For the majority of the country, this was not a pressing issue. According to The Conference Board of Canada, 97% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of drug coverage, although the final report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare indicated that 20% of Canadians receive what could be termed inadequate coverage. In December of last year, a Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians thought the establishment of a national pharmacare program was a health care priority.

It may come as a surprise to the Liberals and the NDP, but Canadians are worried about rising prices on everything, due in large part to the carbon tax. When people are worried about being able to feed their family, pay the rent or mortgage and put gas in their car so they can get to work, they do not spend much time thinking about a drug plan that does not cover the medications they need.

Canadians were hoping the Liberals could get it right. That turns out to have been a false hope. On this issue, as on many others, the Liberals are proving once again to have no idea what they are doing. The Liberal idea of pharmacare is restricted to just two types of medication. If one suffers from heart disease, one is out of luck. Heart disease is the second-leading cause of death in Canada, but medication for it would not be covered.

The Liberals' approach to pharmacare reminds me of their approach to Canadian liquid natural gas, or LNG. When the chancellor of Germany came to Canada looking to buy Canadian LNG, the Prime Minister told him there was no business case for such exports. That was a huge surprise to those companies looking to expand their markets.

Not only is there a business case for Canadian LNG, but there is a moral one as well. In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, countries are looking to replace Russian LNG and have turned to Canada, only to be told by the Canadian government that it does not want to sell Canadian LNG. The Prime Minister needs to learn that when there is a customer willing to buy the product, there is indeed a business case to support it. If Germany and Japan and Greece want to buy Canadian LNG, why would we not want to sell it to them?

A previous prime minister asked farmers, “Why should I sell your wheat?” This tells buyers there is not a business case to sell them the product they are asking for, while at the same time offering Canadians a pharmacare program they did not ask for, a plan so flawed it is unlikely to work.

This is the government that promised a firearms buyback program four years ago. So far, it has not managed to launch it, yet it wants Canadians to believe it has the skills necessary to design and implement a pharmacare program. Put simply, what is being offered is not pharmacare.

It is just another Liberal election gimmick, a promise they will campaign on in 2025, hoping that voters will not look at how many promises they have already broken. Anyone who has looked at the current state of drug coverage in Canada is concerned by this attempt to create additional bureaucracy. We already have some public drug plans; they do not seem to be as good as the private ones. Private drug insurance plans cover many more different medications than public plans do. The difference varies by province, but, on average, private coverage is 51% more extensive than its public counterpart is. In Quebec, the figure is 59.6%. Then there are the delays. Once a drug is approved by Health Canada, it takes an average of 226 days for a private insurer to approve the coverage. By contrast, it takes 732 days for approval by Health Canada, or a little over three times as long, for a public plan to add a drug to its list of covered treatments. These figures do not paint a rosy picture of the ability of public insurance to meet the Canadians' needs.

The marriage contract between the Liberals and the NDP required that the bill come before us last year. It did not. It took the Liberals two years to come up with the legislation, a bill that seems to have been put together without much thought, just to meet a deadline. Given how weak the bill is, I can only imagine what the first draft looked like. Maybe it was just one line, such as “We promise to look at establishing a pharmacare program in the hopes people will vote for us before we have to deliver.” Wait, is that not what Bill C-64 is?

After almost nine years of misgovernment, incompetence and mismanagement from the Liberal-NDP coalition, Canadians have lost all faith in the government's ability to discharge its responsibilities. What is the cost of this national pharmacare program? With two years to look into it, the Liberals either did not think to ask or are afraid to tell Canadians just how much more they want to raise taxes to pay for a plan that would benefit almost no one.

The bill is a public relations exercise by an utterly desperate government that is disliked by more and more Canadians every day. The inability of the Liberals to deliver on their promises is well known. Already, two provinces have opted out of this program. There is no indication that other provinces are interested. One would have thought that, in attempting to create a national program in an area of provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals would have consulted with the provinces. One might have expected that they would have hearings and consultations with stakeholders to see what exists now, what needs to be improved and the best way to do that. As far as I can tell, all they did was ask the NDP the minimum they could promise to keep the NDP's support.

Can the Minister of Health tell us what impact the bill will have on the 27 million Canadians who rely on privately administered workplace plans? If he is an honest man, he cannot, because he does not know. There was no consultation with the insurance industries when the bill was being drafted. Maybe he felt there was no need to check the facts. A promise had been made by the NDP, and the Liberals had to deliver. The needs and wishes for the Canadian people were not worthy of consideration. What is not worthy of consideration is this sad attempt at legislation; Canadians deserve much better than that.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:45 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I have heard a number of Conservatives say the same thing today. They keep saying that only one out of five Canadians wants the legislation; only one out of five Canadians wants pharmacare.

If one out of five Canadians is not good enough for Conservatives—

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House that I do not think we have quorum.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:45 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We are on autopilot. We do not need quorum.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, debate on second reading of Bill C-64 took place tonight without quorum, which means that Bill C-64 will have been considered without the constitutional requirement of quorum. In the event that Bill C-64 receives royal assent, I trust that the fact—

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Before the member goes any further with his point of order, I will remind him that, on February 28, 2024, the House duly adopted an order prescribing that the Chair not receive any quorum calls after 6.30 p.m. today. Back in May 2022, the Speaker delivered a ruling as to the admissibility of the same provision from a similar motion, including the section dealing with quorum calls during extended seatings of the House. That ruling can be found in the debates of May 2, 2022, at pages 4577 and 4578. I would invite the member to read the ruling of the Speaker to find that this matter has already been settled.

It being 9.49 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 7, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. deputy House leader is rising.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I understand that you have received proper notice from all recognized parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I have received notice from all the recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

Is it agreed?

Second readingPharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.
See context

members

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

May 7th, 2024 / 3:15 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

It being 3:17 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester to the motion for second reading of Bill C‑64.

Call in the members.