Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare. Today, I intend to focus on the examples of the first classes of medications which the proposed pharmacare plan would cover.

The first two classes of medications and other devices to be piloted under this program would be drugs and equipment related to the treatment of diabetes and drugs and devices for contraception.

Providing coverage for diabetes medications and equipment will be a huge economic and psychological relief for many Canadians whose health and lives depend on medications such as insulin, metformin and gliclazide.

The goal is also to include the basic equipment needed to treat diabetes, from syringes to glucose monitors.

Given that Type 2 diabetes runs in my family, I may one day have occasion to benefit from that coverage myself. And given how important Canadian diabetes research has been — from the days of Banting and Best, right through to the Edmonton Protocol — it seems very fitting that diabetes was targeted as the first medical condition to receive this proposed pharmacare coverage.

Yet, as important as that diabetes coverage will be for millions, I think it is far more revolutionary that this plan will cover birth control, including the pill, the patch, the implant and the IUD, as well as emergency “morning-after pills” such as Plan B.

In the Senate just last week, Senator Don Plett himself spoke with considerable passion on the need for access to contraception. He quoted a Washington Post piece which explained that one of the ways the Taliban was oppressing women in Afghanistan was by banning birth control.

I had not realized that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was such an outspoken and stalwart advocate for reproductive choice for women. However, I am grateful that he raised his voice — and loudly — to support a woman’s right to control her own body and fertility.

Senator Plett was absolutely correct. No woman — and indeed no person with a womb — is truly free or able to access comprehensive health care without access to contraception. As long as Canadian women, girls and others who need it are denied access to reliable birth control because of financial barriers, we are denying them the opportunity to choose their future lives.

We don’t need to look as far as Afghanistan for an example. In America, only 14 states currently offer legal protection for the right to purchase and use birth control. In the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade, many states are moving toward banning certain kinds of birth control altogether, including the IUD and Plan B. It is a disturbing trend.

At a time when millions of women in the United States are facing the genuine threat of lack of access to contraceptives, I congratulate the Canadian government for its courageous commitment to make safe, reliable, legal birth control more accessible than ever before in Canadian history.

This will be life changing for so many Canadian women.

Action Canada reports that 46% of all pregnancies in Canada are unintended and that 70% of people seeking abortion in Canada report that they have no insurance coverage for contraception.

But if we can provide young teenagers with easy access to birth control — especially access to the more expensive long‑term options, which don’t require a pill to be taken every day or a patch to be changed every week — we stand a very good chance of reducing teen pregnancies and allowing more girls and young women the chance to continue with junior high, high school or post-secondary education.

For girls growing up in poverty, who are socially marginalized and might never be able to afford such contraceptive options, true reproductive choice — meaningful control over their own bodies and timelines — could make an extraordinary difference to their abilities to pursue an education that prepares them for the responsibilities of adult life and perhaps eventual parenthood.

Free birth control will also be a boon for young working women just starting their careers in this gig-driven economy, who may not have the kind of benefits packages which women workers of another generation took for granted. Even if you have a pretty good job these days, it can be hard — as you juggle student loans or high rents — to find the money to pay for something like a $500 new-generation IUD or a $400 contraceptive implant.

If you’re a 40-year-old stay-at-home mom with three kids or a self-employed entrepreneur without work-related drug benefits, free, reliable birth control may be every bit as important to you as to a first-year university student.

Access to emergency contraception is every bit as vital, especially in cases where women or girls have been sexually assaulted or coerced into having unplanned sex, or if they’ve had a barrier method of birth control fail. Those emergency contraceptives are especially important in a country where access to abortion care is far from universal.

The point is that anyone who can have a baby should also have a choice about when and whether to have that baby.

This bold policy will mean substantive liberation for so many people wanting meaningful control over how they plan their families and manage their own physical health.

Providing girls and young women with more and better contraceptive options will pay dividends for them and the community in other ways too.

Fewer unplanned pregnancies means fewer babies born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is most often caused when women drink in the early weeks of pregnancy, before they know they are with child. With improved birth control availability, fewer women will become pregnant while drinking heavily. That kind of family planning could also reduce the risks of other medical issues caused by poor nutrition during pregnancy or lack of good prenatal care.

Fewer unplanned pregnancies could reduce the number of babies born to families who lack the economic or emotional capacity to care for them, which may, in time, mean fewer children abused and neglected, fewer children coming into foster care and not to mention fewer abortions.

Of course, preventing pregnancy isn’t the only reason that people use contraception. Birth control medications can also be important for managing menstrual care, reducing anemia, treating conditions such as endometriosis or polycystic ovary disease or even providing gender-affirming care to trans men.

There are just so many costs — physical, psychological, cultural and economic — to walking around with a womb. Costs born by half the population, costs the other half rarely consider.

A pharmacare plan for contraceptives is a huge step in righting that balance, in acknowledging the true health and social consequences implicit in being female.

But while I celebrate the liberty and freedom that such a plan could offer to women across Canada, my heart breaks a bit to think that the women of Alberta — the women of my province — could well be denied such independence and equality.

As of now, the Government of Alberta has indicated it will refuse to take part in any national pharmacare plan. It’s not clear to me how much of this has to do with Alberta’s dislike of nationally funded and directed programs in general and how much it may be influenced by right-wing ideologues who wish to deny Alberta women their physical autonomy and full humanity.

Whatever the Smith government’s reasons for denying Albertans access to free contraception — not to mention free diabetes care — this national pharmacare plan will not really be national until and unless the citizens of Alberta are included and receive equality with other Canadians.

What will this lead to? Will we have an absurd situation where Albertans will have to travel to British Columbia or Saskatchewan to get free insulin and free intrauterine devices or will that be against the rules? Will women’s groups or families whose members have diabetes end up smuggling medication and medical supplies across Alberta’s borders?

Will young women entering the workforce choose to move to another part of Canada for fear their access to contraception in Alberta might continue to erode? What a stark contrast to British Columbia, right next door, where contraception costs are already covered by the provincial government.

I would dearly hope that if and when these first few steps towards comprehensive pharmacare become law, Alberta and Ottawa are able to come to some sort of understanding or compromise. Otherwise, millions of Albertans will be left as second-class citizens in their own country.

Thank you, hiy hiy.