House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was report.

Topics

Question No. 110
Routine Proceedings

April 11th, 2005 / 6:15 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

What was the name of the company commissioned by the Canadian Wheat Board to hire Avis Gray to the position of Senior Advisor, Government Relations, and what were the names of the other candidates considered for the position?

Question No. 110
Routine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Winnipeg South
Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the government is not involved in the day to day operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, CWB. Consequently it does not have in its possession the names of the unsuccessful candidates, or the applications of any of the candidates. The CWB has advised that it hired the Toronto based executive search firm Ray and Berndston to lead the recruitment process and that this firm prepared a short list of five candidates which was forwarded to the CWB. The CWB has further advised that four members of its senior management team participated in the interview process which culminated in the decision to hire Avis Gray.

With regard to the four candidates who were unsuccessful, the CWB does not propose to release these names publicly. Candidates who are seeking a position, whether in the public or the private sector, make their applications with the expectation that their names, and any other information they choose to include with their applications, will be held in confidence.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 87 and 91 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 87
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin Sault Ste. Marie, ON

With respect to variations among jurisdictions in the application of the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS): ( a ) what mechanisms are in place to ensure equal support for all Canadians regardless of their place of residence; ( b ) where a province or a territory applies a benefit reduction (clawback) to a family's NCBS, does a family still receive, in any case, the same level of overall income support; ( c ) how does the government ensure that provinces and territories invest proceeds from any clawbacks in programs that are complementary to the NCBS; ( d ) by province and for each of the last five years, how have provinces reinvested any proceeds from clawbacks; and ( e ) how many families who see a clawback of their NCBS from a welfare benefit fit into one of the following categories, and for each category, what percentage does it represent of the total number of families receiving the NCBS: (i) working but not earning enough money to qualify for welfare top-up, (ii) disabled or unable to work, (iii) caring for a disabled child under the age of 6 years, (iv) caring for a baby under the age of 1 year, (v) living in a homeless shelter unable to find affordable housing, (vi) paying more than half their income on rent, and (vii) relying on food banks in order to feed their children?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 91
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Calgary North Centre, AB

With regard to the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada Alternative Dispute Resolution process (ADR): ( a ) what were the original ADR projections, including annual projections, that led to the Government conclusion that the ADR would take seven years at a cost of $1.7 billion to resolve some 12,000 cases; ( b ) including the estimated budget with any administrative costs versus compensation, what are any updated ADR projections regarding the number of cases expected to be resolved; ( c ) are any performance reports available on the ADR process; ( d ) what information is available relating to the total actual cost of the ADR program to date including: (i) a breakdown of the cost of the program by category (i.e. adjudicator costs, administrative costs, government lawyer costs, government case manager costs, travel expense, other expenses, amount spent on compensation, etc.), (ii) the total cost of the Model A process to date (including a breakdown of administrative costs versus compensation), (iii) the total cost of the Model B process to date (including a breakdown of administrative costs versus compensation), and (iv) the average administrative costs for each Model A and Model B settlement along with the average settlement information; and ( e ) what information exists relating to the following ADR costs: (i) the amount spent on adjudicators to date, including cost per hearing, (ii) the amount spent on case managers to date, including cost per hearing and any information relating to the need for a case manager to be present at every adjudication, (iii) the amount spent on government lawyers to date, including cost per hearing, (iv) the amount spent on investigations to date including any information relating to the need for investigators to be involved in Model A hearings, and (v) the amount spent on form fillers to date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 91
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

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

Question No. 91
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 91
Routine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resume consideration of the motion.

Standing Orders and Procedure
Orders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will have to hurry to get to everything I want to say in the few seconds I have left.

Earlier I was talking about votes. The next thing I want to say about votes is that our Standing Orders should be changed to allow, under exceptional circumstances, the ability of a member of Parliament to register his or her vote in important votes in the House of Commons even though they may not be present physically.

I am sure that all of us remember an important vote that was held, and I am not sure if it was the previous Parliament or just before Christmas. Lawrence O'Brien, who subsequently passed away, loyally came here under great duress because of physical circumstances to vote as was his duty as a member of Parliament. We have a number of members even now who are facing that same thing.

I would like to propose that our Standing Orders be changed so that a member who is woefully ill or has other such problems may, perhaps via his or her party whip, register that vote for those occasions only. It would have to be one at a time. In that way a person would not be disenfranchised because of something that would be totally out of his or her control.

I know that my time has now elapsed. I have about four more things that I would like to cover. If there is unanimous consent, I would be prepared to do that.

Standing Orders and Procedure
Orders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is there unanimous consent?

Standing Orders and Procedure
Orders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Standing Orders and Procedure
Orders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Standing Orders and Procedure
Orders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

We are now in the questions and comments period for the member.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.