Debate grows as Minister Holland's comments on Bill C-64 raise questions in Senate discussions
The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA) has raised concerns about recent comments by Health Minister Mark Holland regarding Bill C-64, Canada's pharmacare legislation.
According to CLHIA President and CEO Stephen Frank, Holland’s latest comments contradict his previous testimony to the House and Senate committees, where he described concerns over the elimination of private insurance as “misinformation.”
Frank pointed out that the Minister previously said Canadians would have a choice between private insurance and a public model, but his recent letter to the Senate suggests otherwise.
Frank emphasized the need for clarification and amendments to Bill C-64, stating that 27 million working Canadians cannot afford disruptions to their benefits.
CLHIA believes it is crucial that all Canadians maintain access to their prescribed medications and called for the government to ensure the bill does not interfere with comprehensive private plans.
The Globe and Mail reported that Holland recently confirmed in a letter to Ratna Omidvar, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, that pharmacare would provide “universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage” for a range of contraceptive and diabetes medications.
Holland clarified that these medications would be paid for and administered solely through a public plan, not a mix of public and private payers.
He assured that no one would lose coverage for these medications, and all residents of participating provinces and territories would receive free access without co-payments or deductibles.
Holland’s letter comes as part of the government's push to pass Bill C-64, which was introduced in February and passed in the House of Commons in June. The bill is now under Senate review.
According to The Globe and Mail, former health minister Jane Philpott and other pharmacare proponents have expressed concerns over the clarity of the legislation.
Philpott, now dean of health sciences at Queen’s University, stated that a “bad pharmacare bill is not what we’re looking for as Canadians” and emphasized the importance of a universal, single-payer system.
Concerns have also been raised by Matthew Herder, director of the Dalhousie Health Justice Institute, who testified before the Senate about the bill.
Herder noted that while Holland’s letter indicates support for public administration of pharmacare, the Minister's earlier comments seemed “ambivalent” on the issue.
Herder advocated for an amendment to include the words “publicly administered” in the bill to avoid relying solely on the Minister’s letter for clarity.
Senator Kim Pate, who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, acknowledged the importance of Holland’s letter in clarifying the government’s intentions. She expressed hope that this would negate the need for amendments and allow for the bill’s swift passage.
However, Herder and others believe an amendment would provide essential legal clarity, ensuring the bill reflects the government’s stated goals.
