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.