Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 2459, 2462 to 2470, 2472, 2474 to 2476, 2478 to 2481, 2483 and 2486 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

With regard to costs related to the government's output-based pricing system (OBPS) for industrial facilities: (a) what have been the costs to implement and administer the OBPS broken down by year since 2018; (b) what have been the costs related to OBPS compliance verification; (c) how many employees or full-time equivalents are currently assigned to positions related to the OBPS; and (d) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to OBPS compliance verification? With regard to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and its funding of the study titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission”: (a) to what funding opportunity stream, and what application criteria, did Fisman et al. submit their grant application and receive funding approval; (b) when CIHR conducted a peer review of this application prior to funding, (i) which researchers were assigned to conduct this review, (ii) what were their qualifications, (iii) what were their conclusions, (iv) what were their conflicts of interest; (c) how much funding did CIHR grant this study project; (d) were there any other funding agencies or entities supporting this study; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, who were the other funding agencies or entities; (f) what was the expected timeline for study completion at the time of funding; (g) what conflicts of interest were listed for the grant applicants at the time of funding; (h) was there any federal government involvement with, or communication regarding, any component of the application review process, research study, or media outreach; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, which government bodies were involved; (j) what are the details of the media communications once the study was completed, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) type of communication, (iii) who directed the communication, (iv) date of communication; (k) after the study was published, did CIHR receive any negative feedback; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, (i) what was that feedback, (ii) how was it addressed; (m) what is CIHR’s average timeline from the day a grant application is received to when the grant is approved; and (n) what was the timeline from the day the grant application was received to when the funding approval decision was made for the above-captioned study? With regard to Farm Credit Canada (FCC): (a) what is the current number of employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) at FCC; (b) of the current employees or FTEs, how many work out of (i) Regina, (ii) the National Capital Region, (iii) FCC offices in other cities, broken down by location, (iv) remotely; (c) on January 1, 2016, how many employees or FTEs worked out of (i) Regina, (ii) the National Capital Region, (iii) FCC offices in other cities, broken down by location, (vi) remotely; and (d) what is the breakdown of (b) and (c) by rank or classification level (executive, manager, assistant, etc.)? With regard to provisions of the Criminal Code concerning motor vehicle theft: (a) how many Government of Canada-owned vehicles were stolen between January 2016 and February 2024 inclusively; (b) how many of the vehicles in (a) have been recovered; (c) how many of the vehicles in (a) have been used in the commission of other crimes; (d) how many of the vehicles in (a) departed Canada; (e) how many of the vehicles in (a) have been stolen more than once; (f) what is the provincial and territorial breakdown for the location in which the vehicles in (a) were stolen for each year; (g) of the vehicles in (a) stolen in Ontario, how many were stolen in (i) Ottawa or the National Capital Region, (ii) the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, (iii) the rest of the province; (h) of the vehicles in (a) stolen in Quebec, how many were stolen in (i) Gatineau or the National Capital Region, (ii) Montréal, (iii) Quebec City, (iv) the rest of the province; and (i) how many times has the official vehicle of the Minister of Justice been stolen? With regard to the Department of National Defence's (DND) "2022-2023 Annual Report to Parliament - Administration of the Privacy Act", in particular "Figure 7: Number of active requests (as of 31 March 2023)", regarding the age of outstanding access to information and privacy requests filed with the DND, between January 2016 and February 2024 inclusively: (a) how many privacy requests were filed in each year; (b) how many of those requests filed in 2018 or earlier remain open; (c) how many of those requests filed in 2019 remain open; and (d) how many of those requests in (b) were filed by (i) serving members, (ii) veterans, (iii) misconduct complainants? With regard to personnel levels in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, for each year between January 2015 and January 2024, broken down by branch and occupation: (a) what were the target or desired personnel levels in each occupation; (b) what were the actual personnel levels in each occupation; (c) how many applicants expressed a desire to serve in each occupation; (d) how many applicants were admitted to serve in each occupation; and (e) how many civilian, full-time equivalents, were employed in the Department of National Defence? With regard to the electoral district of Saskatoon–Grasswood: what are the details of all the grants, contributions, loans and any other payments from Government of Canada departments, agencies and Crown corporations, but excluding the Canada Revenue Agency, to all other levels of government within and outside of Canada, First Nations, corporations, non-governmental organizations and charities for the fiscal years 2015-16 to the current fiscal year, inclusively? With regard to correspondence, written or electronic, received by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from 2016 to 2024, broken down by year: (a) what was the total amount of correspondence received by the CRA; (b) what was the average length in days for a complete response, excluding the acknowledgement of receipt reply; (c) how many and what percentages of final responses took (i) over six months, (ii) over 12 months, (iii) over 18 months, (iv) over 24 months; (d) how many pieces of correspondence have yet to receive a final response and what is the oldest piece of correspondence that has yet to receive a final response; (e) what is the total yearly budget for all CRA correspondence operations; and (f) what is the total number of employees assigned to CRA correspondence operations? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the objection process, broken down by fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2023-24: (a) what was, or is, the total budget for all CRA objection-related operations; (b) what was, or is, the total employee count for all CRA objection-related operations; (c) how many taxpayers filed objections; (d) what was the total of outstanding federal tax dollars in dispute; (e) how many days, on average, did the CRA take to assign objections from the time they were filed by the taxpayers for (i) low-complexity objections, (ii) medium-complexity objections, (iii) high-complexity objections, (iv) complexity not assigned; (f) how many days, on average, did the CRA take to resolve objections from the time they were filed by the taxpayers for (i) low-complexity objections, (ii) medium-complexity objections, (iii) high-complexity objections, (iv) complexity not assigned; (g) what was the CRA's inventory of outstanding income tax objections for (i) new objections, (ii) outstanding objections, (iii) resolved objections; (h) with respect to the data and figures included in "Appendix-Outcomes of objection decisions for the 2011-12 to 2015-16 fiscal years" in the 2016 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada - Report 2-lncome Tax Objections-Canada Revenue Agency, what are the same data and figures for provide each of the fiscal years from 2015-16 to 2023-24; and (i) since the CRA began measuring and reporting service standards related to the objection process, how many and which service standards have not been met, broken down by fiscal year and specific service standard? With regard to taxation, for the last tax year for which statistics are available: for each federal tax, (i) what is the name of the tax, (ii) how much did it cost to administer, (iii) how many employees or full-time equivalents were assigned to administer the tax, (iv) how much revenue was received from the tax? With regard to the Canada Dental Benefit (CDB): (a) what is the government's estimate of the number of dentists currently operating in Canada; (b) of the dentists in (a), how many have received payments for services provided under the CDB; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by province or territory? With regard to contracts entered into by the government relating to diversity, equity and inclusion services, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total value of such contracts, broken down by year and by type of service provided (policy development, training, guest speaker, fee, etc.); and (b) what are the details of each such contract, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced versus competitive bid)? With regard to Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) reduced operating budgets from 2024 to 2027 as per the most recent Main Estimates: (a) what is the detailed breakdown of budget reductions per branch and office in GAC, broken down by (i) year, (ii) expected budget per year after reduction, (iii) reasons for why the budgets are being reduced, (iv) title of employee managing the branch or office; (b) what is the budget reduction for every embassy, consulate, and representative office from 2024 to 2027; and (c) which of the embassies, consulates, and offices in (b) are scheduled to be closed and by what date? With regard to the federal government's commitment in budget 2022 to invest $76 million to strengthen Canada's capacity to implement sanctions: (a) how much of the $76 million has been invested to date; (b) of the funds spent to date, what is the breakdown by (i) department that was allocated funding, (ii) how the funds were spent, including what specific investments were made and how much spent on each item; (c) which directors general and assistant deputy ministers were tasked with overseeing the program implementation; and (d) what are the key progress indicators used to determine the success of the program, and what are the results of the indicators? With regard to Correctional Service Canada (CSC), broken down by year since 2019: (a) how many assaults have taken place in CSC facilities, in total, and broken down by facility, year, and by type of incident (inmate assaulting inmate, inmate assaulting correctional officer, inmate assaulting staff and inmate assaulting contractor, etc.); (b) what is the breakdown of each part of (a) by the seriousness of the resulting incident (i.e. no injury, minor injury, serious injury, death etc.); (c) following the events in (a), how many times was (i) the inmate who committed the assault moved to a different CSC facility, (ii) the inmate who was assaulted moved to a different CSC facility, (iii) the inmate who committed the assault moved to a higher security; (d) what were the nature and types of espoused used in assaults contained in (a); and (e) of the incidents in (a), how many have resulted in punitive measures against the perpetrator in total and broken down by type of punitive measure? With regard to the mandatory electronic filing requirements for the Goods and services tax (GST) and harmonized sales tax (HST): (a) did the government consult with any religious or cultural communities such as the Amish, Mennonite and Hutterite communities that do not have access or utilize the internet before making paper filing less accessible, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) types of consultations that were conducted; (b) were seniors and Canadians without reliable internet access consulted on the recent changes to electronic filing, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) types of consultations that were conducted; (c) what are the standards or criteria for attaining an exemption from the electronic filing requirement from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (d) what are the estimated number of exemption requests that CRA is anticipating receiving for this year; (e) how much are the financial penalties for a tax filer who is required to file their HST or GST returns online but continues to file it on paper; and (f) what is the projected revenue that CRA will receive as a result of the penalties in (e) and how will that money be allocated or spent? With regard to the federal government’s implementation of new bare trust filing requirements: (a) what is the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) formal definition of a bare trust; (b) what guidance regarding formal and informal arrangements that qualify as a bare trust that requires filing for tax purposes has the CRA provided; (c) how many complaints or requests for information or clarity has the minister and the CRA received to date broken down by (i) number of requests, (ii) medium of request – letter, phone call, webform, (iii) month of inquiry; (d) do parents or children co-signing a mortgage for property qualify as a bare trust requiring a return; (e) does joint ownership of a bank account, investment or security with a value of over $50,000 during the reporting year qualify as a bare trust requiring a return; (f) what are the the CRA’s plans to ensure new requirements regarding bare trusts are communicated clearly and available to all Canadians, including those without access to the internet; and (g) what conditions would exclude a trust from the T3 return requirement? With regard to the government's participation in the UN Climate Change Conference, the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai: (a) what are the total expenditures incurred by the government to date related to the conference, broken down by type of expense; (b) what was the total number of delegates that the Government of Canada paid for, including the (i) official title and department or organization of each individual, (ii) total expenditures incurred for each entity in (b)(i), broken down by type of expense; (c) for the delegations accommodations in Dubai, (i) what hotels were used, (ii) how much was spent at each hotel, (iii) how many rooms were rented at each hotel and for how many nights, (iv) what were the room rates paid at each hotel and the number of rooms rented at each rate, (v) who stayed at each of the rooms in (c)(iv) broken down by room rate; (d) what were the details of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s accommodation expenditures, including the (i) daily rate, (ii) accommodation venue; (e) what are the details of the total hospitality expenditures broken down by (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) name of any commercial establishment or vendor involved in the hospitality activity, (v) number of attendees, (vi) description of event, (vii) description of goods and services; (f) what are the details of all ground transportation expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) origin, (v) destination, (vi) make and model of each vehicle used, (vii) type of vehicle (gas, electric, hybrid), (viii) whether a chauffeur or driver was included, (ix) names and titles of passengers or individuals who incurred the expense; and (g) what are the details of all expenditures on gifts related to the conference, including, for each, the (i) value, (ii) description, (iii) vendor from whom it was purchased, (iv) who was the recipient? With regard to the Minister of Health’s mandate letter and the marketing of food and beverages to children: (a) what are the details of all consultations held since January 1, 2023, including the (i) name of organization consulted, (ii) date of consultation, (iii) format of consultation; and (b) is the government on schedule to submit draft regulations in the Canada Gazette before June 1, 2024? With regard to striped bass (Morone saxatilis) science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what was the biomass of striped bass, broken down by year since 2010, with the upper and lower reference points, for the combined waters of the St. Lawrence River and all Atlantic Canadian waters; (b) what is the biomass in the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries; (c) what is the biomass in the Miramichi River; (d) what is the biomass in Area 4R and 2J; (e) what framework is in place to support a balance of the striped bass population and rest of the ecosystem; (f) what was the total catch of striped bass per area in Atlantic Canada and Quebec broken down by year since 2010 and what was the total allowable catch; (g) what is the biomass projected to be in each of the next five years and what are the upper and lower reference points, broken down by the St. Lawrence River and estuary, Miramichi River and all Atlantic Canadian waters; (h) what has the DFO's science budget amount been, that has been dedicated to striped bass since 2019 per year; (i) what is the known range of the migration of striped bass and can the DFO display where they are throughout the year on a map with their spawning zones and rivers; (j) why has the DFO not removed the maximum length restriction of 65 cm on striped bass per Recommendation 4 from the 2019 Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans’s report entitled “Striped bass in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Miramichi River: striking a delicate balance”; (k) have scientific studies been done in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence on striped bass since 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including results; (l) what ectotherm animals feed upon Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar); (m) what is the "at sea" diet of striped bass, broken down by (i) area, (ii) percentage of species consumed in overall diet; and (n) what is the "in river" diet of striped bass, broken down by (i) river studied, (ii) percentage of diet by species?

With regard to the two-year deadline for sequestration of criminal records for personal possession as required by the passage of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which received Royal Assent on November 17, 2022: (a) can the Government of Canada provide a status update on how this work is proceeding and whether the two-year deadline will be met by November 17, 2024; and (b) what the process will be for Canadians to be notified that their criminal records for personal possession have been sequestered? With regard to the new Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) regulations for the slaughter of non-stunned animals: (a) what are the details of all consultations that the CFIA conducted related to the regulations, including which businesses, stakeholders, interest groups, and organizations were consulted, when were they consulted, and what feedback was received; (b) what impact does the government project that these regulations will have on the (i) availability, (ii) affordability, of Kosher meats in Canada; (c) what specific steps, if any, will CFIA take to ensure that the domestic Kosher market will remain viable in Canada; (d) what is the government's response to the concerns of Canadian Jews who observe Kashrut who will no longer be able to purchase non-imported Kosher meat following the implementations of these regulations; (e) what process did the government undertake to determine who receives exemptions from the new regulations; and (f) what entities or slaughtering practices has the government exempted from the new regulations? With regard to the Department of Finance and changes in federal taxes or levies, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many federal tax or levy increases have occurred since November 2015; (b) what are the details of each increase, including the (i) date, (ii) name of the tax or levy, (iii) previous tax or levy rate, (iv) tax or levy rate following change, (v) percentage of increase; and (c) for each increase, how much additional revenue has been received by the government broken down by year since the increase? With regard to Correctional Services Canada and the La Macaza Institution: (a) what is the last known date the ice rink at the institution was (i) operational, (ii) skated on by inmates; and (b) what is the last known date the tennis court at the institution was (i) operational, (ii) used by inmates? With regard to the authorization regime created by Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how many organizations have (i) applied for, (ii) received, authorization from the Minister of Public Safety; (b) where can organizations seeking authorization apply; (c) when will the authorization regime created under the Act be fully operational; and (d) what are the names of the organizations which have received authorization to date? With regard to the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care: (a) what conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest have been declared by each of the members of the council, broken down by member; and (b) are members of the council permitted to profit as a result of their membership on the council, including through consulting businesses or other enterprises owned by members of the council, and, if not, what are the measures in place to ensure that members do not act in their own self-interest? With regard to government definitions: what is the government's definition of a woman? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and late personal taxes, broken down by fiscal year from tax year 2016 to 2023, by province and territory, and by income tax bracket: (a) how many people had a balance owing and were unable to pay it by the payment due date; (b) what was the total amount of balance owing for people that were unable to pay by the payment due date; (c) how many for each tax year had daily interest charged on any unpaid amount owing because they were unable to pay by the payment due date; (d) how much was paid in compound daily interest by those unable to pay by the payment due date; (e) how many people filed their tax return after the due date and had a balance owing and were charged a late-filing penalty; (f) what was the total amount of late-filing penalties paid; (g) how many people made a request to the CRA to cancel or waive penalties or interest as they were unable to meet their tax obligations due to circumstances beyond their control; and (h) how many people for each tax year were granted relief for requests in (g)? With regard to reductions in Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total number of FTE employees the department or agency will be eliminating; (b) what is the projected cost savings by the department as a result of eliminating FTE employees; and (c) what impact assessments has the department or agency undertaken to ensure that services Canadians rely on will not be affected by the FTE employee reductions? With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Société Radio-Canada (SRC): how many (i) non-disclosure agreements, (ii) non-disparagement agreements, and (iii) confidentiality agreements have the CBC and the SRC signed with employees and contractors for each year in the last 10 years? With regard to Parks Canada’s Detailed Impact Assessment of the ‘Management of Zebra Mussels in Clear Lake in Riding Mountain National Park’ that was opened for public comment in February 2024: (a) who did Parks Canada directly inform of the Detailed Impact Assessment, and when were each of them notified; (b) for each notice in (a), what is the name and title of the Parks Canada official who provided the notice and what method of communication was used; (c) what are the details of how Parks Canada informed the public of the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to extending the public comment period, including the (i) date of public notice, (ii) method of communication used; (d) what elected officials were informed by Parks Canada of the public comment period for the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to March 10, 2024, if any; (e) were any of the elected officials in (d) a (i) mayor, (ii) reeve, (iii) councillor, (iv) member of the Legislative Assembly, (v) member of Parliament, and, if so, what was their name and title; (f) how many public comments for the Detailed Impact Assessment did Parks Canada receive before the original March 10, 2024, deadline; (g) why was the public comment for the Detailed Impact Assessment period extended from March 10, 2024 to March 29, 2024; and (h) what First Nations were informed of the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to March 10, 2024, and when was each informed?

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

moved: That in relation to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the second reading stage of the bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period. On a point of order, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

The time allotted is five hours. The hon. member for New Westminster.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, was the leader in actually bringing the bill to bear, with pharmacare being so vitally important for so many Canadians. He basically said, last week, that the Conservatives had up until noon today to remove their blocking amendment. The Conservatives put an amendment forward that would block pharmacare. What that means for each and every Conservative MP is that 17,000 people, on average, who depend on vital diabetes medication would still have to pay for it out of pocket, in many cases $1,000 a month. That is an unbelievable charge on their ability to put food on the table or keep a roof over their head, and the Conservatives did not care. The reality is that 25,000 women who are looking to take care of their reproductive health in terms of birth control or contraception are also being denied by the Conservatives' blocking this important legislation. My question very simply—

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, has the question and answer period on the time allocation motion started yet?

Yes, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has started asking his question. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby may continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have stood up and should have the guts to actually defend the unbelievably negative things that they have tried to do around pharmacare. My question to my colleague is very simple. When 17,000 of their constituents need access to diabetes medication and 25,000 need access to their reproductive health prescriptions, which are part of this bill, why are Conservatives blocking the ability of Canadians to access these medications?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on this legislation. Specifically, I want to take an opportunity to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his work as well. Canadians expect parliamentarians to work together to get results, to get the services and the care that they need. It is fine that the Conservatives are going to vote against dental care or vote against pharmacare, which means they are voting against medication for diabetes and against women getting access to the contraceptives they need. It is bad enough that they would vote against it, but to block it actively, to block the elected will of the House to be able to get care to people, is extremely disturbing. I will talk about dental care. It was really revealing to talk to dentists across the country who had been filled with misinformation, and who were shocked by how easy it is to use the dental care plan. The reason that confusion, in many cases, exists is because of the confusion deliberately being pumped into it. Again, I would say this to the Conservatives: It is fine that they do not want people to get diabetes medication, they do not want seniors to get dental care and they do not want people to be able to get access to the contraceptives that they need. That is one thing, but they should allow the House to do its work, allow us to move the legislation forward and allow us to make sure that those people who need care get care.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the minister when he said to allow this House to do its work. Allowing the House do its work also means not limiting debate. I know the minister to be a reasonable man. Is he not embarrassed to be limiting debate? Bill C‑64 includes some extremely important powers. There is a danger. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is against encroachment, against jurisdictional overlap, against what will likely be a waste of public funds on administrative redundancy. I think it is important to take the time to debate this properly. Is the minister not embarrassed to be limiting the time for debate?

Mr. Speaker, there will be time for the committee to conduct a study. After committee, there is still going to be time for the report stage and third reading. After that, there will be time in the Senate. It is important to keep the debate going, one step at a time. We need to make sure we can have a conversation with the Quebec government. I had a good conversation with Minister Dubé. Quebec is ready to move forward. If the House takes too long, it affects people who really need medication, whether it is diabetes medication or contraceptives. Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process. It is time to get on with it and move forward.

Mr. Speaker, my question is about pharmacare, in particular, the contraceptive angle of this and the supports it is going to provide. At the heart of this is really a woman's right to choose. I found it very alarming that, on Friday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes stood up in the House and said, “A common-sense Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause only on matters of criminal justice.” It was in the nineties when it was actually made a crime to perform an abortion. What we have seen is that the Supreme Court, using those charters rights, overturned that law. We now have Conservative members saying that, in terms of criminal justice, which that law was, Conservatives would consider using the notwithstanding clause. In theory, Conservatives could bring back a similar law to that which was in the nineties, using the notwithstanding clause to make sure that it stuck, something that the Supreme Court would not be able to overturn. I find it alarming that, only a year after the United States reintroduced legislation regarding a woman's right to choose and preventing it, Conservatives are now toying with and basically laying out the framework for how they would restrict those rights in the future. I am wondering if the Minister of Health would like to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it really is reprehensible to see the backward movement we are seeing over women's reproductive health and rights, where their autonomy over their own bodies is being called into question. Let me make it very clear, as Minister of Health, that we will do everything in our power to make sure that women have full power and autonomy over their bodies. That is a fundamental freedom. That includes their reproductive futures. In many of these instances is an inability to have real conversations about sex and about whether a woman should have the autonomy to make a choice about the way in which she makes decisions with her body. It is absolutely unacceptable in this country. When we take something like contraceptives, such as a condom, that have a failure rate of about 9%, and an IUD, which has a failure rate of 0.2%, how could people, first of all, have the position that they are going to tell a woman what she does with her body and then, secondly, try to block her ability to get reproductive technologies so that she does not wind up with an unwanted pregnancy? Those things, to me, seem to be diametrically opposed. If one was opposed to abortion, if one was opposed to a woman being able to make that choice over her body, it would seem to me that one would at least stand up and support her ability to get reproductive medicine. For me, it is extremely disturbing that this is any kind of debate in this country. Everywhere in this country, every woman should be told that she has autonomy over her body and that she has access to the medication she needs. That is fundamentally what this bill is about, in part. I am sure we will get an opportunity to talk about diabetes as well.

Mr. Speaker, the debate right now is on time allocation on Bill C-64, and I would put it to the Minister of Health that I would love for us to be having a debate on an actual proposal for pharmacare. It has been since June 2019 that the former Ontario health minister, Dr. Eric Hoskins, gave the government and this country clear direction that we need a national pharmacare program. We are the only country in the world with a national health care program that does not automatically include the provision of needed prescription drugs. We know from the Hoskins report that, properly implemented, a full national pharmacare program will save this country $5 billion a year at least. However, the bill is picking out only two things, which is what is so strange about this bill and why I object to the debate being closed before we can actually discuss it. Why are we only talking about reproductive health care and diabetes medication? What that may end up doing is giving those opposed to pharmacare evidence that it costs more than it is worth, when we need to prove to everyone concerned that national pharmacare will save our health care system money and ensure Canadians get the health care they need.