(Return tabled) Question No. 206 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With respect to Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program entitlement, the appeals process and exclusion from entitlement to other federal agricultural programs: (a) are appellants entitled to know what recommendations are made by the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee and, if so, how is a copy of the recommendations obtained by the appellant; (b) are appellants entitled to know on what grounds the Intermediate Appeals Sub-Committee rejects recommendations of the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee and, if so, how is a copy of the recommendations obtained by the appellant; (c) has the CAIS administration ever issued rejection letters to an appellant before ...[+++]or after soliciting the involvement of an appeals committee and, if so, how is a copy of the motion or other directive permitting this obtained by the appellant; (d) who is responsible for forwarding recommendations made by the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee to the next level of appeal; (e) are there any legitimate grounds upon which the National CAIS Committee (NCC) administration is allowed to refuse an appellant the full extent of an appeal by neglecting to forward the recommendations of the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee to the next level of appeal; (f) does the appeal process deal with appeals on a case by case basis or can the NCC administration short-circuit the appeals process based on a judgment that an appellant's complaint is just like the one that may have preceded it; (g) are there guidelines established that would give an appellant a reasonable expectation of the time it should take to address an appeal at all the various levels and, if so, what are the guidelines that govern a reasonable expectation; (h) is the appellant justified in expecting that the decisions made by appeals committees will be communicated to the appellant; (i) what are the circumstances under which it would be accepta ...

They would be suing their own government. That's how desperate they would have to get, if, as we believe, Canada's successful in the homerun case before the extraordinary challenge committee under NAFTA.

But to simplify it, we have here a rogue department that was set up in the Ministry of Public Works outside of normal channels and procedures.

The amendment of Canada's Constitution is such an onerous task that it is not surprising the Minister of Indian Affairs attempted to do an end run around his constitutional requirements.

Provides reliable operation for a minimum of 30 minutes after total failure of the normal electrical generating system, taking into account other loads on the emergency power supply and operational procedures;

It is unfair to the other members of the House who have accepted this procedure, as most have, if there is a short-circuiting of the procedure even though for the best of motives.