SoVote

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

Mr. Mike Morrice

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

May/6/24 8:45:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Brad Vis

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/6/24 8:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

May/6/24 8:53:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-64 and about how this represents a historic milestone in the evolution of the Canadian health care system. This bill and other investments made by our government will help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their medication. I was very thrilled when the Minister of Health, and many other incredible Canadians who have been advocating for a pharmacare program in Canada, joined in my community of Ottawa Centre, at the Centretown Community Health Centre, where, toward the end of February, we made the announcement on Bill C-64, on covering diabetes and contraception medication. One could see the excitement among people when that announcement was made in my community. In fact, I have been working on this issue for over a decade now, during my time as a member of provincial Parliament in Ontario. I was part of a Liberal government that brought something that we called OHIP+. That “plus” covered medications for young people, and then, we were moving on to cover medications for seniors. It was really unfortunate that the Conservative government under Doug Ford cancelled that incredible program because it allowed for care for so many Ontarians. However, I am thrilled that we are taking this important step here at the federal level. In 2021, Statistics Canada found that one in five adults in Canada did not have the insurance they needed to cover their medication costs. This means that over 20% of adults in Canada face out-of-pocket drug costs that create a financial burden. This can lead to people sacrificing their basic needs, such as buying groceries or heating one's home, in order to afford their medications. It can also lead people to ration their medications, causing them worse health outcomes. This is not acceptable and I do not think that this is the kind of country any of us want to have. Choices like whether to fill a prescription have serious consequences. Whether skipping meals or skipping doses, the decision to go without can create a cascade of negative impacts on a person's health and can increase the burden on our health and our social safety nets. We can and we must do better. That is why we introduced Bill C‑64 and proposed this first step toward universal pharmacare. Our commitment to address the accessibility and affordability of medication can be seen with the various initiatives we have implemented with respect to national pharmacare. In addition to the introduction of the pharmacare act, which includes a commitment to work with provinces and territories to ensure universal access to contraception and diabetes medications, we also established a partnership with P.E.I. to improve the affordability of prescription medications, implemented the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases and established a Canadian drug agency. Let me start with the pharmacare act, which outlines a way forward toward national universal pharmacare in Canada. Bill C-64 recognizes the critical importance of working with the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of health care. It also outlines our intent to work with these partners to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. This bill is an important step toward improving health equity, affordability and outcomes, and could help reduce health care system costs over the long term. Coverage for contraceptives would mean that nine million Canadians of reproductive age would have better access to contraception, reducing the risk of unintended pregnancies and improving their ability to plan for the future. We are a government that has always and will always recognize that autonomy over one's body and the ability to control one's own sexual health is a matter of fundamental justice. Contraception is a key component of individual autonomy. It is an essential component of reproductive health and contributes to advancing gender equality.

662 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 309