CPAC - Wednesday, May 22, 2024 - 03:00 p.m. (ET) - Segment #6

minister can explain just the put it together. One hand they're saying yes, we want to help. On the other hand they're not. Just making it harder for Canadians. >> The Speaker: The honourable minister of Minister of Justice. >> Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his questions. What I'm going to talk about is the medication covered right now under this proposal. That is diabetic medication and contraception. One can only include the very issue of contraception is a sacred cow for the Conservative Conservative Party because it touches on the notion we believe in firmly on this side of the House in alliance with some of our progressive allies in this chamber that women and only women have the right to have control over their bodies and the reproductive rights processes. What impact does this have on women? A significant impact. Not having affordable access to effective contraception can increase the risk of unintended pregnancies, impact life plans such as going to school or advancing one's career. By giving women this control we're helping their health care outcomes and their economic and education outcomes. Certainly that is not something that the member from Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows would oppose for his female constituents. >> The Speaker: Questions. The Honourable member for northern Okanagan -- central Okanagan Similkameen Central Okanagan--Similkameen--Nicola. >> Quickly, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this legislation, I believe that there should be more debate on it because it is a wider bill. Right now it takes about seven years for an oncology drug to be approved in Canada and that's partly because of the many processes that has to go through Health Canada, provincial group that discusses drugs, et cetera. This would add to that and I think we need to have more conversation around that. But outside of that I'd like to correct the minister. It is within the purview of the Government through the regular supply process to basically fund initiatives and they can come to agreements with provinces to fund particular things under the fiscal power. They don't need to have legislation such as this. So would the minister Plesac knowledge that they don't need to have this legislation today in place so that they can make payments to individual provinces like in British Columbia they already have approved contraception through their own budget process. That's something that was debated in their House and passed. He does not need to do that here and now. I am concerned with other measures within the bill. They do not need this bill to pass in order to make those payments to provinces, whether it be for diabetes or for contraception. >> The Speaker: Honourable minister of Minister of Justice and attorney Minister of Justice and Attorney General. >> I thank the member for offering substantive question and comment into this debate. So we've got agreement that there are health care needs that relate to medication. That's useful progress. I would say the need for proceeding with legislation in this context with this very particular piece of legislation is because the program is not meant to be a checkerboard where it's done on a bilateral basis province by province. It's meant to be national. Covering all ten provinces and all three territories. That's the first very important point. The second very important point is that what I would say is that the very pressing issue he raised about on lodgal medication of cancer treatment deserves to be discussed and debated. We are opening the door towards pharmacare in this country finally as an important expansion of our medical care system and through the Canada drug agency, through the now formulary, through the expert recommendations that will follow we will learn more about when oncology drugs should be the next salvo in terms of expanding this envelope. Thank you. >> The Speaker: Questions and comments. The Honourable member for New Westminster New Westminster--Burnaby. >> [Voice of Interpreter]: I understand that the Conservatives absolutely don't want to know anything about the measures that will help tens of millions of people -- thousands of people, rather, in their ridings, around 18,000 people that will benefit from medication to help fight diabetes, another 25,000 people in every Conservative ridings that will benefit from access to contraceptives. What I don't understand is why the Bloc is opposed to this legislation. Why they want to block this bill. Even if all major Québec unions have said clearly that this bill is very useful and should be adopted, there are many more Québecers that are affiliated with these unions than people who voted Bloc notice last federal election. So this is the real question. Why will the Bloc be opposed to these measures that will help millions of Québecers? >> The Speaker: [Voice of Interpreter]: The honourable minister of Minister of Justice. >> [Voice of Interpreter]: It's another very good question. I'm wondering the same thing.

There's the Bloc's tradition of promoting gender equality, women's rights, freedom, autonomy, their health care system. Now it's not somewhat of a sad and dangerous situation. In Québec women have to choose between if they can pay for their bills or for their medication. With this bill this choice will be eliminated. They will receive care in a rather serious situation that [indiscernible] not only Québecers but also roughly 9 million people across Canada. A rather serious issue and we have to move quickly to meet their needs. Thank you. >> The Speaker: [Voice of Interpreter]: The Honourable member for Jonquiere. >> [Voice of Interpreter]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to respond to my NDP colleague by saying that the Bloc is never opposed to progressive policies. What the Bloc is doing is defending the Québec's political autonomy and that's what Bloc is doing. I'd like to reminds my colleague that there are many unions that are part of the oui Québec association in favour of independence. They can't say it will -- is he against Québec unions because they're against independence? Most Québec unions -- well, progressive Québec doesn't have to be proved. The minister of Minister of Justice seems to be making a link between the rights of women and the fact that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to pharmacare. There's no more progressive society than Québec on women's rights. And if the justice minister wants us to have greater fairness between men and women one of the best ways to do so would perhaps to have some legislation on secularism because there seems to be some religions that make distinctions between men and women. I'd like to hear if he'd like have a bill on secularism. What does he have to say about that? >> The Speaker: The honourable minister. >> [Voice of Interpreter]: What I'd like to underscore is right now we're talking about women, there are impact on women as a group overall and there's also a disproportionate in terms of First Nations, Métis, people with African roots, and east and southern Asian women. They're much more serious consequences for these women with respect to diabetes. They are disproportionately affected by diabetes. These are the women that I've just mentioned. So for a progressive people and party, I hope that they will -- can stand up to women, particularly those who are disproportionately affected by current policies with respect to diabetes. Thank you. >> The Speaker: The Honourable member for Peace River Peace River--Westlock. >> I do remember I was elected at the same time this minister was, and I do remember the sunny ways and the accusations that they plead -- that the Liberals made against the Conservatives about our use of closure and our use of the ending debate here. And they had promised in the 2015 election that they would no longer do that. Is the minister proud of himself today? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> The Speaker: The honourable minister of Minister of Justice. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud when I'm advancing the rights of women and diabetics in Canada. I'm concerned about the member from Peace River Peace River--Westlock two days after his leader basically cavalierly indicated he'd be invoking the Nasdaq clause to trample people's voting rights, the member That demonstrates quite clearly who is on the side of protecting women's rights and women's reproductive rights in this chamber. >> The Speaker: It's my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time. Members may refer to the speakers ruling where we indicated to the House that the question and comment period on a time allocation or closure motion will be interrupted if there's an opportunity to return to the proceed inside the same sitting. There are 4 minutes remaining for questions and comments on the motion after private members business. And i see the Honourable Member [Indiscernible] would like to take the floor. >> Mr. Speaker, there was consultation amongst the parties and I will note that that there is unanimous consent to be able to present a bill that I would like to table today. A all those opposed to the motion please say nay. Agreed? All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Carried Madam Berube seconded by Mr. Theriault asks for leave to table bill entitled Act to Amend the Criminal Code Provincial Medical Aid In Dying. This is deemed adopted. The Honourable Member. >> Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to table this bill, this important bill titled an Act to Amend the Criminal Code: Provincial Medical Aid In Dying. The purpose of my bill is to allow people from suffering from an illness leading to incapacity to submit an advanced request for consent to MAiD with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. Recognition of advanced requests for MAiD in the context of a serious incurrable and incapacitating illness would be a major step forward for the peace of mind of patients. Therefore, the text of this bill amends the criminal code to provide that MAiD may be provided under provincial plan, providing that a person suffering from an illness leading to incapacity to consent to care may make an anticipated request for MAiD. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Speaker. >> The Speaker: The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the -- just a moment, I have to read this out. Madam Berube seconded by Mr. Theriault proposes that this bill be now read a first time and printed. This motion is deemed adopted. (End of Interpretation) At the next sitting of the house. The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is rising on a point of order? >> As I've done in the past in regards to just getting the questions on the order paper on the record, I would ask for unanimous consent to do so and I believe there was consultation that was done prior. >> The Speaker: All opposed to the Honourable Member moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed? >> (Voice of Interpreter): The House has heard the words of the motion. All those opposed to the motion please say nay. Carried. >> Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today, 2487, 4901, 2491 and 2497 to 2550. If a supplementary response to question number 494 originally tabled on June 8, 2022, supplementary response to questions number 628 originally tabled on September 20, 2022, a supplementary response to question number 891 originally tabled on December 5, 2022, a supplementary response to question number 905 originally tabled on December 7th, 2022, supplementary response to question number 9921032, 1037 and 1054 originally tabled on January 30th, 2023, a supplementary response to question number 1164, 1176, 1177 and 1178 originally tabled on march 20, 2023, a supplementary response to question number 1215, originally tabled on march 27, 2023. A supplementary response to question number 1264 originally tabled on April the 17th, 2023. A supplementary response to question number 1295 and 1297 originally tabled on April 21, 2023, a supplementary response to question number 1412 originally tabled on June 5, 2023, a supplementary response to question number 1429, originally tabled on June 8, 2023; a supplementary response to question number 1517 originally tabled on June 21, 2023; a supplementary response to question number 1600 and 1620 originally tabled on September 18, 2023; and the government's responses to questions number 2488, 2489, 2492 to 2496 and 2501 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately. >> The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house that the aforemention questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately? >> Agreed. >> The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary. >> Finally Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand and then I think we go to notice of motions after that. >> The Speaker: Yes. Agreed? Agreed.

Copyright protected and owned by broadcaster. Your licence is limited to private, internal, non-commercial use. All reproduction, broadcast, transmission or other use of this work is strictly prohibited.

Transcripts