44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
- May/6/24 8:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member has not impugned anything. The member is just simply stating what she knows to be true. I do not think there is any motive being impugned here. I just think the Conservatives are slightly offended by what they are hearing.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:42:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was eating my dinner in the lobby and was horrified to hear the member throw out these accusations of Islamophobia, which are very serious accusations against members, with no basis. I think that is unparliamentary. The member is providing no support because she is talking utter nonsense. If I were to casually say that a member is anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or anti-Christian, I think you would find that unparliamentary. I hope you will call that member to order.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:43:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, these are obviously not points of order. I think the member should continue her speech.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:43:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I completely agree with my colleague from Kitchener Centre. Let the member for Winnipeg Centre speak, and hopefully the Conservatives will not provoke any more interruptions.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:43:20 p.m.
- Watch
I will just remind everyone to be careful in what they say about one another and to make sure that we stay within the parliamentary rules of this institution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give some examples. We are talking about facts, so I am going to give some examples.
This is from rabble.ca. It is entitled, “The inconvenient anti-choice record of 'pro-choice' Pierre Poilievre”. The Abortion Rights Coalition—
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:43:50 p.m.
- Watch
Order. It is against the rules to use someone's name in the chamber. Just make sure we do not use the names of members, and let us not use props.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:44:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my apologies, but I am actually reading, and my understanding in the House is that we are allowed to read from notes.
The article states, “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice members of Parliament and has always rated Pierre Poilievre as anti-choice and continues to do—
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Order. Let us all take a big, deep breath.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, let us back that up one more time.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton. I am so sorry. That is totally my fault, and I take responsibility. My apologies, but I am reading verbatim.
The article reads that the coalition has always rated the member as “anti-choice and continues to do so.” It continues to say, “he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception”.
Here are some examples: “There's just too many other reasons to doubt [the member for Carleton's] pro-choice claims”. “Like Erin O’Toole, [the member for Carleton] would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote.”
On Bill C-311, which is likened to an anti-abortion bill, the entire Conservative Party, including the member for Carleton, voted in favour.
That is in this Parliament, so it is not surprising to me, when we are talking about an opportunity to lift up the rights of women and gender diverse people, to lift up equality, to support a person's right to choose and to have access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care, that the Conservatives are violently opposing this legislation. Why? It is because they do not care about reproductive rights. In fact, they have actively voted against reproductive rights.
The fact is that Conservatives are going against the pharmacare bill and are talking about insurance plans. There are a lot of people in this country who do not have insurance plans, which tells me how out of touch the Conservatives are with people who are struggling. These are the people who are struggling and who they talk about all the time. They are working, not for a living wage, and have no benefits and no pension plans. They not only have fought against this benefit, should they have diabetes or should they choose to not want to get pregnant, but also have actively fought against a living wage, often in marginalized jobs, often taken up by women in marginalized communities.
Do members want to talk about freedom? It is freedom only if it suits the Conservatives' narrow, and what has been likened by some, certainly in the media, extremist rhetoric. These are things like the member for Carleton endorsing Jordan Peterson, who is anti-trans, anti-choice and anti-women.
Therefore, it is not surprising that in a bill that focuses on specifically lifting up equality in Canada, the Conservatives are conveniently fighting against it in the name of so-called “choice”. By them denying individuals' access to contraception or to the morning after pill, they are denying freedom to make a choice over one's body. This includes banning medications from young people who are transitioning, young trans kids. We need to protect trans kids. We need to protect women's rights, and we need to protect the right to choose.
490 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:48:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I, of course, come from the province of British Columbia, where contraceptives are already provided by the provincial government. To ensure equality for women, how much money would the Province of British Columbia receive from this NDP bill because we already have contraceptives? For equality's sake, what is the number B.C. would get?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:49:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to apologize for my misreading when I was reading the article. I do apologize. I was not trying to be cheeky, but I was reading directly from an article.
We know that certain provinces, provinces his colleague called “communist”, are providing free contraception care—
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:49:42 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:49:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just like the record to state I never said “communist.” I only came into the debate—
An hon. member: No, you did not.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:49:53 p.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not saying that he called provinces communist. I said that some of his colleagues have called them communist.
Certainly, provinces do not act alone in health care. The federal government works with provinces to provide services. We have pushed the federal government to ensure provinces have what they need to provide, as a starting point, free diabetes medication and also contraception.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one issue seems fundamental to me in this context. The Government of Canada and the rest of Canada want pharmacare. That is fine for them, but it goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
I would be curious to hear my colleague's thoughts. Quebec already has a pharmacare system. Would she agree that Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:51:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is responsible and obliged to uphold national standards. We know that Quebec is ahead of the game on a number of issues. I will give the hon. member a couple of examples. On child care, Quebec is decades ahead, as well as on social programs, certainly.
Absolutely, when we are talking about provinces, the federal government is obliged to provide provinces with what they need to be able to offer these services.
I would, however, give a caveat to New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, currently, women cannot access an abortion. There need to be guidelines, in terms of public health transfers, if provinces are not upholding what the Liberal government has called the human right to access safe, trauma-informed abortion care.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have greatly appreciated the comments of my colleague from the NDP. It has been a very spirited debate here. We are talking about the provinces, the jurisdictions, and also about equality of care across the country. I think that is where the federal government comes in. That is where legislation like Bill C-64 comes in to ensure that there is equality of access to pharmacare, specifically in the areas of contraceptive care and diabetes.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that issue.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:52:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly it. If one looks at access to reproductive rights, they vary throughout the country. We need to change that to ensure that if this country is actually doing what it says, which is protecting the reproductive rights of those people who can get pregnant, then they need to start doing that. That means access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care or access to contraception.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
