Thank you, Madam Minister. General comments, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Madam Minister, would you take the bill back and reconsider it to answer the questions? However, there was a second part of the question, which asked, do you send out a general notice to the eight members that there is going to be an appeal committee struck and then pick no more than five of those respondents, but no fewer than three? That may have been the second part of the question. However, I will let you respond to the main part of the question which was whether you would reconsider this for clarification.

Thank you, Madam Minister. General comments, Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Chairman, I understand what the Minister is trying to do, particularly in the summer months, when you cannot find everyone in the community. The way the bill reads does not accomplish that because of the composition of the appeal committee. The minimum is three and the maximum is eight, within a particular community. Out of the maximum of eight people you appoint, which also includes the chairman, what you are saying is that if there is an appeal during the summer months, you want to have a minimum of three and a maximum of five to sit on the panel to hear the appeal. I know why you are suggesting that. It is because in smaller communities many people go out on the land and some are on holidays. If there is a case that has to be heard you want to make the quorum smaller.

The problem I see is that if you are appointing up to eight people, what happens if they are all available? The discretion is going to be left to the chairman, but that is not fair because they are already sitting on an appeal board. If they are all available they should all be able to attend. That is why you are appointing them. That is the problem I see.

I do not have a problem with the quorum part. If you want to make it three, so be it, to accomplish the summer scenario. You cannot limit the panel for only five when are you going to appoint up to a maximum of eight. If you raise it from five to eight then you can accomplish what you are trying to do. The panel is the problem because the discretion will be left to the chairman.

For instance, if I am appointed to sit on an appeal committee in a community where there are seven other people with me, if I am called upon and I am available, I want to go. I do not want to leave it up to someone else. That is why you as a Minister appointed me. Why would the chairman have that discretion? The panel business is the problem, Mr. Chairman. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Madam Minister, do you wish to respond to that?

Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the point I am trying to make. I am not making reference to the client who is making the appeal. I am suggesting the appeal appointee, the appeal committee member, who the Minister appoints, this is the concern which I have. It is the panel. It you appoint eight and the panel says only a maximum of five then the other three, if they are available, will not be able to participate. The purpose of appointing them is so they can sit on the appeal board. If the appeal panel is increased from five to eight, it says, "the chairperson of the appeal committee shall for an appeal designate not fewer than three and not more than five members of the appeal committee." If you increase the number from five to eight I think the Minister will accomplish what she wants to do. This would be reflected in number two where it says, "The Minister cannot appoint more than eight members." If this section is changed I am sure the committee would make this go through. It is awkward when you appoint a maximum of eight and then you eliminate the panel when they are hearing appeals to only five members. This is where the problem is. Can the Minister respond to my comments, Mr. Chairman?

Madam Minister.

Thank you, Madam Minister. The chair recognizes Mr. Zoe, Mr. Arvaluk and then Mr. Pollard. Mr. Zoe.

Motion To Defer Bill 5

Mr. Chairman, I move that we defer Bill 5.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

We shall defer Bill 5. I would like to thank the Minister and her witness for appearing before the committee.

Is it the wish of the committee we move on to Bill 6? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

There is a motion to report progress. The motion is not debateable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

We shall report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Bill 5 and wishes to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that you accept...

I am sorry. Concur. I am going by memory. I lost the note.