Arif Virani

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

Mr. Speaker, the choice of government is for Canadians. It is not for the member, nor me.

First of all, as the member is a medical professional, I found some of his interventions quite astounding. The notion that investing in the health care system is somehow inappropriate is not what his province advocated for, nor did any of the other 10 provinces and three territories when we struck an almost $200-billion deal.

What I would also say is that it is really fundamental to get straight what we are talking about here. We are talking about delivering health care for Canadians by investing in their medication. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rightfully pointed out, we are alone in the OECD in being a state that provides medical care coverage without providing medication coverage. That is an anomaly that we are curing with this important step. Why is it important? Because it deals with reproductive rights for women and medication for diabetes, which affects 3.7 million Canadians. Those are two cohorts that desperately need our support.

That is what we are providing through this legislation and that is why we are moving with pace to implement it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have several responses.

First, there has been 10 hours of debate thus far.

Second, this is not just about contraception and diabetes. It is also about establishing, within 30 days of royal assent, a committee of experts to make recommendations to the minister regarding the operation and financing of a national universal single-payer pharmacare. Are we proceeding incrementally at the start? Absolutely we are.

With respect to the financing component, that member is from the Saanich—Gulf Islands. In her own province, the estimate on the financial savings to the system just in B.C., from a UBC study, is that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. As I said earlier, and I will say again, there is an ethical case for proceeding with pace. There is also a financial case for proceeding with pace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with everything my colleague across the way just said.

I want to stress that, when we talk about the health care budget we give to Canadians in Quebec and all across Canada, it is not about interference. It is about equality. It is about control and independence, especially for women, whether they are Quebeckers or Canadians. They have the right to control their own reproductive system, and contraception will help them do that. It is as simple as that. This is crucial for gender equality.

I hope all the Bloc Québécois members vote in favour of the bill so it can go to the committee mentioned in the motion we are now studying, because it is time to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions today and every day in this chamber. What I would say is that it is critical. It is critical for basic equality. It is critical for basic things such as women's control over their own bodies and their reproductive rights. I know that that this can sometimes be a divisive issue on that side of the House and, in particular, within that caucus.

On this side of the House and among progressive parties that are represented in this chamber, it is not controversial whatsoever. We stand by a woman's ability to control her body, to control her reproductive processes, and if that means providing free contraception, that is exactly what we will do with this bill, and we will proceed with haste to achieve that goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are many reasons to get behind this kind of legislation, but there is also an economic reason. I appeal to the red Tories who are standing opposite right now. On the diabetes stats alone, unnecessary costs are incurred from lost productivity and elevated health care system use due to diabetes and its complications, which include heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. If we provide diabetes medication free of charge, we can save an estimated $27 billion to $39 billion in our health care system in this country by 2028. That makes fiscal sense, not to mention ethical sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposed programming motion contemplates several hours of committee study. What is also important for the House to understand and for Canadians who are watching to understand is that when we are talking about pharmacare and a precedential expansion of the medical system envelope provided in this country, we are talking about a significant feature that will help promote better health care outcomes, more equality for Canadians and specifically give women reproductive rights and reproductive control over their bodies through the provision of free contraception.

[Justice, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will state that our government will stop at nothing to ensure that Canadians' charter-guaranteed rights and freedoms are protected.

One cannot claim to care about freedom and then vow to strip certain people's freedoms away when it is politically inconvenient. That is not democracy. The opposition has said that it will start with criminal justice matters, but where will they stop? Will it be with religious rights, abortion rights or the rights of the LGBTQ2 community?

Our government will always protect all Canadians' rights. It is a wake-up call that the Leader of the Opposition cannot and will not do the same.

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows and should know that the bail reform bill, which the member actually voted in favour of, tackles serious violent repeat offenders, which include those who use serious violence in committing an auto theft.

What the member should also realize is that when the very bill he impugned, Bill C-75, was before this chamber in the 42nd Parliament, we promoted an augmentation, an increase in the penalty available for auto theft. He and all of his colleagues voted against that.

What I would prefer is some collaboration and a bit less hypocrisy.

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows that repeat violent offenders are already dealt with by our bail regime. He voted in favour of that. He should also know that when Bill C-75, the very bill—

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that member. He is my critic and he has served on the justice committee with me for a number of years. What I do not have respect for are the instructions he gets from his leader on how to vote.

When we had legislation in the chamber, the fall economic statement, that dealt with tackling money laundering and organized crime links to auto theft, he was instructed to vote against that. Before even reading the document that is budget 2024 and what it contains with respect to addressing auto theft, increasing maximum penalties, dealing with the link between using youth and organized criminality and tackling more money laundering, he was told to vote against, yet again, by his leader.