Arif Virani

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on the speech given by my colleague and juxtaposing that with what I learned in a previous role when I sat on the Emergencies Act committee for this Parliament, what we learned about that far-right extremist group is that a weapons cache was found at the Coutts border crossing and the logo for the Diagolon group was found at that weapons cache. In fact, members of that group were charged with conspiracy to commit murder against RCMP officers.

What I find most troubling about this lack of judgment on the part of the Leader of the Opposition is he purports to stand for law and order and law enforcement officials and yet is meeting with, quite intentionally, people who have now been charged with conspiring to kill law enforcement officials. I wonder if the member could comment on that juxtaposition.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I am not sure why the Conservatives would block access to health care and medication being covered for their own constituents, who include nine million women and 3.7 million people who are suffering from diabetes.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would just politely remind the member opposite to take a look at the text of the actual proposed programming motion. It talks about the committee meeting for five hours a day on two further sitting days, so that would be ten hours of hearings. There would be a third sitting day for actual clause-by-clause analysis. There has also already been ten hours of debate on this important bill. I think it is important for Canadians to understand why we believe this is important because Canadians should not have to choose between paying for their bills and paying for their health care.

We know that cost has consistently been identified as the single most important barrier to accessing medications and that cost is unevenly borne by women and gender-diverse Canadians; that is on the contraception piece. With respect to diabetes, one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following their treatment plan according to the cost and their inability to pay those costs.

That is significant because, as I said earlier in this debate, people with diabetes that goes untreated end up having more significant health care consequences, which include things like stroke and amputation. The knock-on health care costs to our system are very significant, let alone the hardships those people endure. Through this legislation, which we are putting an emphasis on passing quickly, we can improve the health care outcomes and the economic outcomes for those Canadians.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as I am advancing the rights of women and the rights of diabetics in Canada.

I am a bit concerned about the member for Peace River—Westlock. About two short days after the member's leader cavalierly indicated that he would be invoking the notwithstanding clause to trample Canadians' charter rights, the member for Peace River—Westlock stood up and called for ending abortions, protecting the preborn and overturning the Morgentaler decision.

That demonstrates quite clearly who is on the side of protecting women's rights and women's reproductive rights in this chamber.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard some interesting comments. I want to note that when we talk about women, there are impacts on women as a whole, but there is also a disproportionate impact on certain women.

I am talking about first nations women, Métis women, women of African heritage, as well as East Asian and South Asian women. These women are disproportionately affected by diabetes.

I hope that those who come from a progressive people and party will understand that these women are disproportionately affected by the policies currently in place regarding diabetes.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is another very good question. I have been wondering the same thing, given the tradition in the Bloc Québécois and Quebec of promoting gender equality, promoting women's rights, promoting women's freedom, empowerment and access to health care. It is a bit sad and dangerous when a woman in Quebec has to choose between paying the bills and paying for medication.

With this bill, we will eliminate the need to make that choice. We will respond women's needs. This is a very serious situation that affects not just Quebec women, but approximately nine million women across Canada. It is a significant problem. We must pick up the pace in order to meet their needs.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for offering a substantive question and comment to this debate.

We have an agreement that there are health care needs that relate to medication. That is useful progress. I would say that there is a need for proceeding in this context with this very particular piece of legislation because the program is not meant to be a checkerboard where it is done on a bilateral basis, province by province. It is meant to be national, covering all 10 provinces and all three territories. That is the first very important point.

The second very important point is that the very pressing issue the member raised about oncological medications for cancer treatment is something that deserves to be discussed and debated. By starting incrementally, we are finally opening the door towards pharmacare in this country as an important expansion of our medical care system. Through the Canada drug agency, the new formulary and the expert recommendations that would follow, we would learn more about whether oncological drugs should be the next salvo in expanding this envelope.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the medication that would be covered under this proposal, which is diabetic medication and contraception. I am struggling to find any shred of a basis or rationale for the Conservatives' opposition to this. What I can only conclude is that the very issue of contraception is somehow some sort of sacred cow for the Conservative Party because it touches upon the very important notion, which 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 own bodies and their own reproductive processes.

What impact would this have on women? It would have a significant impact. Not having affordable access to effective contraception can increase the risk of unintended pregnancies and impact life plans, such as going to school or advancing in one's career. By giving women this control, we would be not only helping their health care outcomes, but also helping their economic and education outcomes. Certainly, that is not something the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge would oppose for his female constituents.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with the remarks of my colleague opposite.

First, when we created a national program for all of Canada's provinces and territories by investing about $200 billion, we launched a process to sign bilateral agreements with each province, Quebec included.

Second, I would ask my colleague to talk to diabetics and women in his riding about the cost of their medication these days. The oral contraception pill costs about $25 a month, or $300 a year. Diabetes medication can cost between $900 and $1,700 a year.

I think my colleague should support this bill so that his constituents can save money while receiving care from the health system and getting their medication.

[Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64, May 22nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I think the fiscal case for proceeding in this manner is quite remarkably already laid out in studies, such as the one at UBC that I cited, and studies that we have seen in other areas with respect to diabetes. If there was no need for these kinds of services, I would query the Conservatives why 1.9 million seniors in this country registered for the Canada dental benefit, if no actual need existed.

I would put to the Conservatives, also, that if there was no need for extending that coverage on dental care, why we have already had 100,000 appointments set up, in literally the first three weeks of the program. It expresses to me, on a simplistic analysis, that the need is acute.

We are addressing the need with the program. Does it cost money? It absolutely costs money. However, that is an investment on the front end that cures costs to the system on the back end, which is something that a traditional red Tory would normally get behind.