With regard to the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund (RRRF): (a) which businesses and communities have applied for funding; (b) for each business and community that have applied, was their application accepted or rejected, and if it was accepted, how much funding did they receive; (c) for each successful application, how many jobs were (i) initially meant to be saved by receiving funding through the RRRF, (ii) actually saved; (d) what specific follow-up measures were taken with each successful applicant to ensure that the funding was actually used to save jobs; (e) how many of the jobs saved by the RRRF were located (i) in Canada, (ii) outside of Canada; and (f) is the government aware of instances where funds from the RRRF were used inappropriately or for ineligible expenses and, if so, what are the details of all such instances, including the (i) recipient, (ii) value, (iii) summary of goods or services inappropriately purchased? With regard to employees at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalent on the (i) Fisheries section, (ii) Oceans section of DFO, broken down by year since 2015; (b) what was the number of fishery offices field supervisor positions in conservation and protection at DFO, broken down by year since 2016; (c) what is the current number of fishery offices field supervisor positions in conservation and protection; (d) how many positions at DFO were eliminated in conservation and protection in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022; and (e) how many positions at DFO were eliminated in total in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, broken down by section of DFO and type of position? With regard to research conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what dollar amount and percentage of DFO's scientific research budget has been provided to the (i) oceans department, (ii) fisheries department, broken down by year since 2016; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by topic or area of research? With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Eastern Shore Islands Area of Interest (AOI) and the proposed marine refuge off the Scotian Shelf bioregion: (a) how many (i) groups, (ii) individuals, have been consulted since January 1, 2019, regarding the AOI or the proposed marine refuge; and (b) what are the details of all such consultations, including, for each, (i) the date of the consultation, (ii) the format, (iii) the name of the individual or group consulted, (iv) who conducted the consultation, (v) the summary of the feedback or submission related to the consultation? With regard to the various government relief programs for businesses put into place since March 1, 2020, and broken down by each program: (a) what was the number of incorporated businesses that (i) applied for funding, (ii) were provided funding, (iii) had their application rejected or not accepted; (b) what was the average amount of funding provided in (a)(ii); (c) what was the number of sole proprietorship businesses that (i) applied for funding, (ii) were provided funding, (iii) had their application rejected or not accepted; (d) what was the average amount of funding provided received in (c)(ii); and (e) what is the breakdown of each of the subparts in (a) and (c), by sector and industry, if known? With regard to Canadian travellers re-entering Canada, provisioned under Order In Council 2022-0042 (Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order (Quarantine, Isolation and Other Obligations)): (a) on what date (s) were the webpages “COVID-19 vaccinated travellers entering Canada”, “Find out if you can travel to Canada – Citizen with symptoms – By land or sea”, and “COVID-19 testing for travellers” on the government’s travel website updated to reflect the entry requirements that Canadians must wait at least 10 calendar days after a positive test result before entering Canada, to avoid being fined $5,000 per traveller (plus surcharges); (b) which department is responsible for (i) drafting communications regarding this provision, (ii) updating the webpages in (a); and (c) what are the details of all other communications which were issued regarding this entry requirement, including, for each, the (i) date issued, (ii) medium, (iii) summary of communication? With regard to the requirement for fully vaccinated travellers to have a recent negative COVID-19 test before crossing the land-border or face a $5,000 fine: (a) was this decision based on any scientific research, other than political science, and, if so, what specific scientific studies or data was it based on, and what are the specific website locations where the studies and data is located; (b) has the government conducted a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining the test requirement, either molecular or antigen, and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) what were the findings; and (c) what specific criteria or metrics must be met (i) at the land border, (ii) on flights from travellers from the United States, (iii) on flight from other international travellers, before the antigen test requirement for returning travellers is dropped, and on what dates does the government anticipate meeting each of these metrics or criteria? With regard to the "Other consolidated specified purpose accounts", listed on pages 133 and 134 of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume 1, and broken down by each account: (a) what is the current balance of the account; (b) how many (i) individuals, (ii) corporations, (iii) other entities, have received payments from the funds, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17; (c) what is the total value of the expenditures in each subpart of (b); (d) what is the annual cost to the government to operate and maintain each fund; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of (d); (f) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to administer each fund; and (g) which minister and department has responsibility for the employees in (f)? With regard to the refusal of applications submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many applications were submitted between January 1, 2014, and January 31, 2021; (b) how many applications in (a) were refused; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by (i) country of applicant, (ii) line of business being applied to, (iii) month; (d) how many applications in (a) were processed using Chinook; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by (i) country of applicant, (ii) line of business being applied to, (iii) month; (f) of the visa offices using Chinook, what is the refusal rate of applications, broken down by line of business; and (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by year from 2017 to 2021? With regard to the use of the Chinook software program at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what oversight of Chinook is in place; (b) has Chinook undergone a performance audit; (c) when was the last time Chinook was audited; (d) what quality assurance is in place for Chinook; (e) what training materials are used to train IRCC employees on the use of Chinook; (f) what is the content of those training materials in (e); (g) what training is given to IRCC employees using Chinook specifically to prevent racism and discrimination; (h) what is the content of the material used for the training in (f); (i) what consultation with stakeholders was done by IRCC on the implementation of Chinook before it was implemented; (j) has any consultation with stakeholders been done by IRCC since Chinook was implemented; (k) were any immigration lawyers or consultants consulted by IRCC before Chinook was implemented; (l) if any stakeholders were consulted by IRCC on Chinook, how many stakeholders were consulted; (m) what was the result of the Privacy Risk Assessment of Chinook conducted in August 2019; (n) what is the content of the Security Assessment Report conducted for Chinook in January 2020; (o) why are the visa offices in Algiers, Havana, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Tel Aviv not using Chinook; (p) are notes about immigration officers’ decisions while using Chinook kept; and (q) why is no list provided to applicants of the software that is used to process applications, including the use of Chinook? With regard to the requirement for federal public servants to be vaccinated against COVID-19: (a) how many public servants have been placed on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status; (b) how many public servants have received health exemptions; (c) does the government gather information regarding the nature of individual health exemptions, such as the condition causing the need for the exemption, and, if so, what is the prevalence of different kinds of health exemptions; (d) how many public servants have received religious exemptions; (e) does the government gather information regarding the nature of individual religious exemptions, such as the particular faith of those with the exemption, and, if so, what is the prevalence of different kinds of exemptions; (f) how many public servants have applications for health exemptions pending; (g) how many public servants have applications for religious exemptions pending; (h) by what date does the government expect the applications in (f) and (g) to be resolved; (i) how many public servants had applications for a health exemption denied; (j) how many public servants had applications for a religious exemption denied; (k) for each response in (a) through (j), what is the breakdown by department, agency, or other government entity; (l) how many replacement workers has the government (i) contacted, (ii) hired, to fulfill functions previously performed by those who are on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status, broken down by department or agency, type of job, and job title; (m) what is the government policy related to the ability of the individual placed on leave to return to their position after it has been filled with a replacement worker; (n) what ordinary functions of the government are not currently being carried out as a result of unvaccinated workers being placed on leave without pay; (o) has the government assessed the impact on public services resulting from the decision to place unvaccinated workers on leave without pay, and, if so, what are the details of the assessment, broken down by the impact on each department; (p) how many workers are being expected to perform additional tasks as a result of colleagues being placed on leave without pay as a result of these new requirements, broken down by department or agency; (q) how many of the workers in (p) are receiving any additional compensation directly related to their colleagues being placed on leave; (r) has the government identified any increase in stress or strain for the workers referred to in (p) as a result of additional workload, and, if so, what are the details; (s) how long will the workers in (p) be expected to perform additional tasks; (t) does the government intend to hire additional replacement workers if the workers on unpaid leave continue to be on leave for more than (i) six months, (ii) nine months, (iii) 12 months; (u) has the government received legal advice regarding whether this policy is consistent with (i) existing labour agreements, (ii) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (iii) other human rights codes, laws, or agreements which bind the actions of the federal government; and (v) what legal advice did the government receive respecting the items in (u)? With regard to the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) how many (i) personal, (ii) business, banking accounts have been frozen under the order; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) (i) and (ii), by financial institution; (c) what is total value of the accounts in (a) (i) and (ii), broken down by financial institution; and (d) has the government set up any fund or compensation program for individuals or businesses that have their accounts frozen as a result of error or mistaken identity related to the order and, if so, what are the details?

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team: (a) how many meetings has the task team had since it was established in 2019; (b) what are the dates of each meeting; (c) what deliverables or accomplishments resulted from each meeting; (d) what specific input has been provided on the priorities of DFO's Atlantic seal science program; (e) what has resulted from the team's examining the application of technology advancements to seal research; (f) what measurable progress has been made on the objective of the team to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in seal science projects; and (g) what specific advice did the team provide on how DFO could better communicate its scientific findings to the fishing industry? With regard to Canadian travellers re-entering Canada, provisioned under current or previously issued Orders in Council (OICs) related to minimizing the risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada (quarantine, isolation and other obligations): (a) how many Canadians have been denied entry, or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of Order in Council (OIC) 2021-0075; (b) how many Canadians have been denied entry or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (c) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (d) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (e) did the responsible minister request a Charter Statement, or similar review, prior issuing OIC 2022-0042 or similar repealed OICs; (f) where can the published Charter Statement in (e) be found; and (g) what health-based assessment was conducted on the risks to Canadian travellers health and safety for requiring these travellers to quarantine in the United States versus quarantining at home; and (h) how frequently has this assessment been reviewed and where are the published results available? With regard to the AgriDiversity Program administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) how many applications were received in 2021; (b) how many projects were successful and received funding in 2021; (c) how many projects in (a) and (b) were to support African and Black Canadian work in 2021; and (d) what are the details of all projects in (c), including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) start date, (v) projected completion date? With regard to the applications for the resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan, submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications were filed under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals, and their families, who assisted the Government of Canada; (b) how many of the applicants in (a) remain in Afghanistan; (c) how many applicants in (a) have been refused; (d) how many applicants in (a) have come to Canada; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by month, since July 2021; (f) how many applications submitted under the Special Immigration Measures (SIM) program, the Afghan humanitarian Government-Assisted Refugees (GAR) program, as well as the Afghan humanitarian Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSR) program have yet to be processed by IRCC; (g) what is the average amount of time that those applications in (f) have to wait before being processed; (h) how many applications submitted under the SIMs, GARs, and PSR have completed biometrics; (i) how many government employees have been working on applications filed under the SIMs since July 2021; (j) what is the breakdown of (i) by month, from July 2021 to February 2022; and (k) how many IRCC employees were in Afghanistan from August 15 to 27, 2021? With regard to direction and control regulations as it relates to the Income Tax Act: (a) what is the government’s position regarding direction and control regulations; (b) does the government support Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity); (c) have government ministers met with individuals or organizations advocating for changes to direction and control regulations, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names of ministers and Members of Parliament in attendance, (iii) names and titles of ministerial or political staff, as well as government officials in attendance, (iv) names and titles of individuals or organizations in attendance, (v) meeting format (in person or virtual); (d) are discussions ongoing within government about the challenges posed by and possible reforms to direction and control regulation, and, if so, which ministers and departments are involved in the discussions and what is the expected timeline for when (i) the discussions are expected to conclude, (ii) any reforms would be announced or enacted, if applicable? With regard to the government listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity: (a) is the government reviewing whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole as a terrorist entity, and not just the Quds Force; (b) has the government reached a decision about whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole; (c) if the government has reached a decision, what is it; and (d) if the government has not reached a decision on the IRGC, when will it reach one? With regard to the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) which crowdfunding platforms or payment service providers registered with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada in relation to the order; (b) how many (i) suspicious, (ii) large value, transactions were reported by each platform or provider in relation to (a); and (c) what is the total value of the (i) suspicious, (ii) large value transactions reported by each platform in relation to (a)? With regard to expenditures by the government on the rental or purchase of cots or folding beds which were delivered to the government lobby in the House of Commons on February 17, 2022: what are the details of all related contracts and expenditures, including, for each, (i) the amount spent, (ii) the vendor, (iii) whether units were rented or purchased, (iv) the number of units?

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. During his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-215 seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which sickness benefits can be paid, which would entail a new and distinct charge to the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that, as there is currently no statutory authority or appropriation authorizing this new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is required, as required by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Standing Orders of the House. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.” I have carefully studied Bill C-215. It would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act in order to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 52 to weeks. It seems clear, therefore, that the bill seeks to increase the duration of the period of employment insurance benefits. The Chair has already ruled on questions similar to the one that concerns us today. It was effectively the case in rulings on almost identical bills in 2006 and 2021. In the ruling of April 15, 2021, on Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), found at page 5691 of Debates, the Chair also indicated that the bill had to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it sought to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50. In light of the analysis of the bill standing in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière and the precedents cited, the Chair is of the opinion that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 52, Bill C-215 would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized. As a result, the Chair concludes that it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage. Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the end of the second reading debate. I thank all members for their attention.

I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on March 1, 22 and 28 by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for La Prairie regarding Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. During his intervention, the sponsor of Bill C‑237 argued that it entails no new expense and does not change the transfer amounts or its purpose nor does it change the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. He continued by saying that all C‑237 does is reduce federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. The member added that his bill seeks to exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the application of the Canada Health Act. The member for La Prairie added to these arguments that a bill that amends a condition or qualification of an existing act should be accompanied by a royal recommendation only if that amendment entails an increase in these costs or changes the purpose, which he argued is not the case with C‑237. For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the bill seeks to eliminate conditions and qualifications associated with the legislative spending power enacted by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. He thus contended that a new royal recommendation is needed for the purposes of the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces as proposed by Bill C-237. I reviewed the bill and I have reached the following conclusions concerning this impact on the royal recommendation. Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subject in order to receive the Canada Health Transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament. On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states: A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative. As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate. I thank all members for their attention.

I have to say, as the representative for 14 Wing Greenwood, that it was great to see that you had a good time in the beautiful riding of West Nova. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Order. I do not know who that was. We should be able to hear what is going on in the House. Are we ready to move on? I would like to hear the minister. The hon. Minister of Housing.

Order. This is the fourth time I have to stand to allow the minister to answer so that I can hear what he is saying. I will ask the minister to answer. He has the floor.

That is all the time we have for question period.

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

We left off with the hon. member for Davenport, who had three minutes left, and I want to make sure that everybody takes their conversations outside. The hon. member for Davenport.

There is a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt. Folks, if we could take our conversations outside, that would be wonderful. Is that the hon. member's point of order? We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Thanks for that. Also, I did forget to do one thing after question period, which was to remind members not to introduce people in the gallery when they are asking their questions or what have you. It is against the rules of the House of Commons. We are going to go back to the member for Davenport, and I am going to give her the three minutes because it is hard to get started again. The hon. member for Davenport.