| Q-2062 — February 26, 2008 — — 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 aministration 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 acceptable not to inform the appellant of decisions made by appeal committees; (j) is it a reasonable expectation on the part of the appellant to expect that the decision of their appeal would not be discussed by the NCC administration, to the public or a competitor without the approval of the appellant and, if so, what recourse is open to the appellant if this expectation has not been respected; (k) would the public circulation of a decision made by the NCC administration without the appellant's express permission constitute a “moral hazard” for the purposes of the Principles of the Transition Agreements, section 14.1.3; (l) would such an action call into question the integrity of the appeals process and compromise the quality and legitimacy of the decisions and decision making process, as they applied to the appellant; (m) how many times is it acceptable to change the reasons that are given to a producer for their exclusion from a program; (n) when a historically precedent-setting change to the eligibility criteria of producers to Business Risk Management (BRM) programs are made, who bears the responsibility of ensuring that these changes in direction are clearly and adequately communicated to the agents of the program and who bears the responsibility to articulate these precedent-setting changes in the guidelines; (o) is the producer under any obligation to demand of the purchaser an accounting or history of the purchaser's previous use of the product in order that the producer may be eligible for BRM and, if so, what is the justification for this under the CAIS program; (p) if the purchaser’s intended end use of the product changes after the purchase has been made, is the producer then entitled to re-apply, if they have previously been denied program funding because of the purchaser’s stated intended end use of the product; (q) what level of appeal hears issues that may pertain to situations where the guidelines are in conflict with other over-riding legislation or previous implementation agreements and does this level have any authority to bring resolution to a conflict; (r) what is the duty of the NCC administration to ensure that they are correctly following their legislative duty to Parliament to act in accordance with the legislation; (s) are the administrators of the CAIS program accountable to the government if they fail to act in accordance with the legislation and statutes; (t) what avenues are open to the appellant once the appeal process comes to an end, if they can show that the legislation and duly signed implementation agreements have not been followed; (u) are there any circumstances under which the NCC is allowed to approve the implementation of guidelines that are inconsistent with legislation and, if so, where in the legislation is that entitlement articulated; and (v) what avenues are open to the appellant to prevent the NCC administration from moving a matter to Revenue Canada for collection, once all avenues under the appeals process have failed, when there are conflicts between legislation and program guidelines? |