Debates on Pharmacare Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to hear from the minister about the timing of this blockade by the Conservatives.

We know that every year, unfortunately, quite a lot of very young people are brought up onto the Hill as part of a very anti-choice movement. They are susceptible to the forces at will that would bring them up for various reasons. That is happening this week on the Hill. Considering the Conservatives' focus on their own fundraising abilities, would the minister say that this has anything to do with their timing in the blockage of the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the cost savings in terms of this program. Of course, this goes right back into medicare and our health system.

The direct cost associated with unintended pregnancies here in Canada is an estimated $320 million, so the benefits of universal contraception do not just end unwanted pregnancies with prevention and cost savings, but can actually help in terms of prescription contraceptives for other health conditions like abnormal uterine bleeding and endometriosis, precancer of the uterus, polycystic ovary syndrome and the prevention of ovarian and uterine cancer.

Can the member talk about the importance of seeing those benefits and the cost savings to our system as well, in addition to the health of people who need that support?

Madam Speaker, members have spoken a lot today about the money saved by individuals and the money saved by the system, which we could reinvest into health care. By providing free contraception, an individual is said to have a lifetime savings of up to $10,000, which is huge.

I would like to hear more about the larger issue. How can this piece of legislation itself, through contraception, empower women and those who menstruate?

Madam Speaker, I am curious. We have seen that the Conservative Party of Canada is riddled with corporate lobbyists in its governing body: big oil, real estate, anti-union companies, insurance companies and big pharma.

In fact, its members are using the talking points from those corporate entities in their conversations today against the bill. Ultimately, is the member actually defending his constituents or the corporate interests of big lobbyists?