HALIFAX, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Ms. Mary Ann McGrath
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I guess everybody who's coming is here. I would like to call this planning meeting of the Community Services Committee to order. Has everybody who has a tentative proposal submitted same or are there other lists out there circulating around that we don't know about? Maureen sent one. Did you have anything extra, Jerry?
MR. JERRY PYE: Not at this time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Anything from the Liberal caucus?
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: No.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, I will start by reviewing where we were, to the best of my knowledge, on the last approved list. Mora, stop me anywhere if I screw up. The teen smoking initiative was an approved topic of last year. We had people in to talk about that initiative. Subsequent to that we were supposed to have a meeting, with at least a portion of the committee, with the teen committee themselves.
We're still attempting to reschedule that; we haven't forgotten about it. But every time it comes up they're either getting ready to write exams or, for instance, this month being September those kids are starting school again. So, we have that in the pending file, and it will get done. I would like to hear from them. They wanted some extra time after the smoking legislation passed to, I think, rethink or reconfigure their position. (Interruptions) Either they're going to come here or a member of each caucus is going to go meet with them, whatever they're more comfortable with.
Dr. Brendan Carr, who is working on a wellness initiative and a support network for family physicians through the Department of Health was an approved topic, and we're trying to schedule him in for November. That's the tentative for him.
1
Then we had a topic that was approved that we haven't managed to schedule yet, but apparently it's also in the works now. A group of children who were in the care of the Children's Aid Society wrote a report called The System: It Doesn't Work For Us. That was a topic that we approved last year and had been unable to schedule to date. Apparently we're very close now to getting them in to talk to us.
MR. PYE: They don't have a title or a name?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Youth Society.
MR. PYE: Of the Children's Aid Society?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): I do believe that's sort of their slang name, it comes from the report and that's just what they have been called, the Youth Society.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The report now has to be over a year old. So it would be interesting, from their perspective, what drove them to write it and what's happened since. Is it going anywhere? Are there any improvements being made?
That was the list of topics from our list that had been approved. We also had, on the original list submitted last year from the NDP caucus, a topic of volunteerism and NGOs and how do we encourage and support volunteers. Jerry, it's interesting but do you have any idea who you would contact? What would be your . . .
MR. PYE: We can certainly check that out. I think that was one that Maureen put forward, again. We will certainly do a follow-up on that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We seem to try to get people from a government department to come and speak to us about these things where possible, but that one kind of stumps me.
MR. PYE: That's a good point, and we will certainly check that out.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think it's interesting, I think it's certainly a very valid topic, but a little direction.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: The two organizations that I would have recommended some time ago but they are no longer in existence are the Volunteer Resource Centre and there used to be the International Year of the Volunteer Committee, 2000, they had an office established over there on Bayers Road. They are both now closed because of the lack of resources and everything else from municipalities or the province or feds, whatever the case may be. Both facilities are closed. The resource centre closed two years ago after the International Year of the Volunteer was finished.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: There's no question we depend hugely on volunteer assistance in this province.
MR. HENDSBEE: The only other organization I can think of would be the United Way, because they have such an umbrella of organizations underneath them depending on a lot of volunteers in different areas.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's a possibility.
MR. PYE: There's also the HRM volunteer organizations, but that is municipal organizations across the province. I think it's something that we would have to go back and just simply . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mora, maybe you could make a couple of calls to a couple of departments and see if anybody has any brilliant ideas; maybe we've hit on the crux of the problem right there.
MR. HENDSBEE: I can give you the names of the persons who used to be in charge of the other offices who now work with DND.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: All right. The next on the agenda that I see is a new proposal from Maureen regarding a Ms. Sharon Batt, who's working on a causation and treatment study of breast cancer. How does everybody feel about that one? Do you know any more about it, Jerry?
MR. PYE: No.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If she's headed in some specific direction?
MR. PYE: I think Maureen specifically spells it out . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The environmental aspect of . . .
MR. PYE: Yes.
[9:15 a.m.]
MS. STEVENS: If I may, Maureen called and sent her apologies. There was a meeting she couldn't change, but this is just what she said when she proposed it this morning. I just wrote it down exactly. She mentioned that it would be a very interesting session if it did get passed. I guess Sharon is quite animated and having been through it herself, she can be very enlightening.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I have no objection. What about anybody else? Okay, agreed. I suppose we should be doing this by motion.
MS. STEVENS: Consensus is fine.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Consensus. All right. The last topic that has come to my attention, the letter has been passed out to you, is the Riverview Home Corporation, Adult Residential Centre. They had written to the Premier, wanting to come to speak to caucus. It was passed along to me that this might be a very good topic for our committee rather than individual caucuses. I agreed. You have the letter in front of you, any comments?
MR. PYE: I agree as well. It fits in with the Community Services Committee's concept.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That gives us one, two, three, four, five, if we can figure out what to do with volunteerism, and then the follow-up with the teen smoking. That will probably take us quite a way. Now we have some correspondence to get settled.
MR. GAUDET: I would like to suggest another topic, please.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Certainly, Wayne.
MR. GAUDET: With the recent announcement for the Canada-Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Program agreement, maybe we could invite someone from the department to come and share technically what's in this agreement.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could I ask to defer voting on that until next meeting? I agree with you, it certainly fits and housing is definitely timely. I don't know how far along they are. Where they've just announced the agreement, maybe they don't have any plans to announce yet, and rather than say we'll schedule them, if they can't really tell us anything yet, I would just like to have an opportunity to go back and see where they are and if they think that maybe by Spring they will have their plans formulated or whatever, just to get a sense of where they are, if that's okay.
MR. GAUDET: No problem.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: All right. I will make myself a mental note for that one. It was called the Canada-Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Program agreement, check on timeline.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Mary Ann, I think I was a little late, but did you go through all these materials?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No. There are actually two pieces of correspondence in there with a lot of attachments, and that's the next thing we're going to tackle. Am I right, there's just two?
MS. STEVENS: Two there, and then the one that was just faxed over.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The first was a request from Joan Jessome on behalf of the NSGEU to study the Client Services Delivery Initiative of Community Services. My understanding is that thing is deader than a doornail, so I have no idea what the heck we'd be studying. The minister has already announced that that initiative is on the slow road to hell because they couldn't get any take-up on (Interruptions) They put out a proposal call and didn't get any response that fit inside what they were looking for, so there was nothing . . .
MR. MACEWAN: But if this request is too defined or too specific, all right, but I certainly have no objection to a broader study of the Department of Community Services initiatives and what they're doing.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We could be here a long time.
MR. MACEWAN: I know.
MR. PYE: I think the important thing is although the RFPs have actually not met the requirements of the Department of Community Services, the Community Services Department is continuing to go forward with a service delivery initiative. I think that's important to recognize as well. That is one of the reasons why Joan Jessome might want to appear before the Standing Committee on Community Services, to express their particular views and concerns. All we can do is listen and hear their views and concerns and we can pass them on to government. We don't make recommendations so there's nothing wrong with Joan Jessome or the NSGEU representative making an appearance before the committee, that's what I would say to you.
I agree with you, Madam Chairman, that for all intents and purposes, it's probably deader than a doornail, or whatever phrase you use. Having said that, there are the internal workings of the department which is going forward with an initiative change.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Paul.
MR. MACEWAN: I agree with what Jerry has said, there's nothing wrong with us hearing and meeting with what witnesses we wish to but we can also make a recommendation to government. I think one of the committee's tasks is to report from time to time to the
minister, to the House, to say we've met these people and we recommend that all dogs with tails shorter than five inches be given red collars, or whatever. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I understand what you're saying, Paul.
MR. PYE: I would not use the word "recommend", I would use the word "suggest".
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I like recommend, proposed.
MR. PYE: That's news to me, I didn't know we had the authority to recommend.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We don't have the authority to make them listen is the trick. Any thoughts from this side?
MR. HENDSBEE: My first impression of it would be that if it's deader than a doornail, then why bring a bag of hammers to try to bang on an issue that may not be going anywhere. If the department is not getting any responses from the private sector for its initiatives, then if it is to be a dead issue or not, why keep beating a dead horse? I would like to know if the department is moving forward or going to adjust their initiative. Perhaps we should ask the department first to come in with the progress of their Client Services Delivery Initiative, if it's going anywhere or not. Whatever the response is to that, then I would bring in the proponents or opponents to hear them. I wouldn't want to hear from the opponents first and then go back to the department with, we recommend this and this, when they could be doing nothing about it anyway because as you said, it may be deader than a doornail and nothing is coming forward anyway.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: What if we wrote to the Department of Community Services, attaching Joan's letter to say that we've had this request, is there a definitive direction yet that the department is taking, just sort of to put on paper whether they're going anywhere with this at the moment or not.
MR. PYE: Madam Chairman, I think the minister has indicated that they're going along with a Client Services Delivery Initiative whether the private sector involvement came or not and that was the move by the Minister of Community Services. However, this letter was dated April 30th. During that period of time, the . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think it was June 5th.
MR. PYE: Wasn't it dated April 30th?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mine is dated June 5th.
MR. PYE: And I believe there also was a clear message that the government did not accept, the request for proposals that have been brought forward, however, because they didn't meet the mandate of the government. The government did continue to say, or the minister of the government did continue to say, that they were, in fact, going forward with a Client Service Delivery Initiative. All I'm saying is that it might be appropriate to write Joan Jessome, President of NSGEU, back and ask her in light of, does she still want to appear before the Standing Committee on Community Services. You can certainly list the "in light of" and you can make those comments with respect to whatever they may be.
That's one thing we can do and the other thing is we can certainly give her the opportunity to be heard, knowing full well there might be some concerns that they have with what government is doing now internally, within the department.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well the second part, Jerry, I'm afraid I don't agree with you. It doesn't make any difference what government does, they have to deliver service. So the fact the government delivers service and as long as it's internally delivered, is something government has always done. I understood her point if they were going to go to an external delivery model because that was the climate under which she wrote and made the request, they were going to move from internal to external delivery.
What I would like to do is clarify with the minister whether or not they are still looking for an external delivery model or if they're going to an internal system, in which case then we would be in a position to write back to Joan and say, in light of the fact that the government has indicated it is not going to go to an external delivery model, do you still wish to appear.
MR. PYE: I think we can do that to Joan now, along with the letter going out to the minister. We can say . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Saying we've written to the minister asking for clarification.
MR. PYE: Absolutely.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. PYE: The letters can go in sequence.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is that clear to everybody? Does it sound like a plan? Okay, that's what we will do.
MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: You're writing to both sides?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We are writing to both sides. We are going to ask Peter for clarification on what direction they're going to head in. We're going to tell Joan we've written to Peter asking for clarification and that's where her request sits at the moment.
The second letter in this package is from a Mr. Anthony Weagle in South Brookfield. He deals with two issues. His first issue deals with the way the Lieutenant Governor's budgetary spending issues have unfolded. I would, in my opinion, say that is outside our mandate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. MACEWAN: As some of you will know, I used to be Speaker of the House and I can tell you that the Speaker's budget is where that money comes from, it supports Government House. That's one of the functions that the Speaker's Office looks after so if they are wondering where the money comes from, that's where it comes from, ultimately from the taxpayers of course.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The second issue I would say is also somewhat outside of our mandate, since it deals with an individual's situation that . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: I think it's a matter for the local MLA to address versus us. I would leave that to Mr. Morash. (Laughter)
MR. PYE: I would have loved to hear Mr. Morash's comment but I want to tell you that it's not the first time that the Standing Committee on Community Services has heard an individual case. I can tell you the McNeil case was one that it heard in 1998. I want to tell you . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: He's not asking to be heard though, he's asking . . .
MR. PYE: Yes, he's asking to be heard before the committee . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: All right, I'm looking at the bottom paragraph which says that he's looking for assistance but I didn't . . .
MS. STEVENS: In the middle of the page.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, I see it.
MR. PYE: And what he can do is he certainly can and I would consider it appropriate and I would support him coming before the Standing Committee on Community Services, only to speak on the issues relating to Housing Services and the issues as they directly affected him. He has some issues with respect to the way the process - he has two issues, one
with respect to process and the other with respect to the delivery of that process. So those are the two issues that he has concerns with. I think it is important that he let us know, as a citizen, how he feels the delivery of a government program is happening and I think that's important for us to know. And if there are any problems with the delivery of that program then we should, as a committee, understand those. Then we can recommend, as you have said, Madam Chairman, to government on how best to deliver.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: I don't want to speak against Mr. Weagle, I'm sure he's a fine individual, but he has here as part of his submission examples of bureaucratic error and laziness, spelled l-a-z-z-I-e-n-e-s-s, plus government stupidity, which is followed by a dozen pages of newspaper clippings and they cover a wide range of things. My point being that these don't represent his opinions, they represent the opinions of the news media on various issues. I don't know if we want to open that Pandora's box because if we do it for one we have to do it for them all and the next thing we know we might have Mr. Pye and all of his constituents lined up here to comment on the issues of the day. Well, we hear from Mr. Pye anyway, that's his job, but I mean all of those other people.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: Madam Chairman, personally I wouldn't mind hearing from the Department of Community Services and Housing Services about the RRAP program, the demand and everything else that program is under. Perhaps they should be advised that a particular case in point may be raised and they should be prepared to answer that in a generic sense with regard to how this case may be similar to other people that have been frustrated with the department because of such a demand that that RRAP program has. I know there is a long waiting list of applicants looking for assistance for repairing their homes and a lot of them are seniors or low income families or whatever the case maybe, and I would rather have the RRAP program come in here, be explained, show us the demands and perhaps through various representations from our own constituents, express the frustrations that some of our constituents have been experiencing, not just this one particular gentleman but many others.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. PYE: I just wanted to make comment again, Madam Chairman, with respect to individuals having the right to appear before the standing committee and the representative was, in fact, from Dartmouth North who appeared before the committee and wanted to, this is irrespective of the representation that the individual might have. But here we have a unique opportunity to listen to a citizen on how the delivery of a government program takes place in the eyes of a citizen and what occurs. I think the Standing Committee on Community Services can learn from that. We can hear from the bureaucrats any day with the delivery of programs by government but what we can't hear any day is what Joe Citizen out there has to
say about the delivery of a program or service. I think that it is quite appropriate from time to time - not for this committee to be bogged down by every individual - and, fortunately, since I've been on this committee there have been only two individuals if, in fact, Mr. Weagle gets his day, there would only be the McNeils that I refer to and Mr. Weagle who would have had the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Community Services.
I would say to you, Madam Chairman, that we tell Mr. Weagle to temper his comments solely to the issue with respect to housing and with respect to the delivery of the program and service so that we can better understand those frustrations of the ordinary Nova Scotian out there trying to get a grant from government through a program.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: It is not just the housing program. He has problems with the contractor he hired, it is a lot of (Interruptions) It is a big muddy mess in this case, Jerry. This one is.
MR. PYE: The same with the other one. The other one was such a muddy mess that it was an in camera session.
MS. STEVENS: That's right and no transcript.
MR. PYE: And no transcript.
MR. GAUDET: Madam Chairman, I would like to support the honourable member for Preston with his suggestion to have someone come in to give us general information, I guess, in terms of how many people do apply, how many people are on the waiting list, what factors are used to determine who gets housing grants. That certainly would be interesting.
MR. HENDSBEE: With that then, Madam Chairman, I would like to extend a question in regard to when contractors are too busy to do the work in a specified period of time, this particular gentleman may have had a carryover problem with the grant and stuff like that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: How do they deal with that.
MR. HENDSBEE: How do they deal with circumstances like that?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: What's the wish of the committee? Do we go with the housing program?
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. PYE: Against. I certainly don't agree.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We've leave it at that for now.
MR. PYE: Let the record . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if there is a carryover, if this can get resolved maybe you can let us know where it stands; he may have his problems all settled by now.
MR. MORASH: If I might, Madam Chairman, to my knowledge he doesn't have his problems settled at this point in time and there is no further action being taken. That's the reason that he has written this committee. I certainly would support him appearing in front of this committee, however, I am a replacement member on the committee. I am a member today anyway, but it is rather interesting and I am not sure that I know all the details about the time lapse and it seems like there was a problem with paperwork and contractors and, unfortunately, he lost the opportunity to do some repairs on his home, which were much needed, because of the time lines that were in there. So I don't know the details well enough to know how to overcome that the next time around.
From the department's point of view, I believe they give what they consider adequate notice for people to get the work done within a certain period of time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If the work doesn't get done then they don't get the grant.
MR. MORASH: That's what happened in this case. Now, I don't know, had he applied at the proper time if he could have had an extension and there was a miscommunication between him and the department, which didn't allow for that extension to take place. There are a number of factors there that tend to cloud the issues. But, unfortunately, the end result is that he didn't get a grant to fix up his house which he certainly does need.
MR. PYE: I deliberately didn't go into the details of that even though I had a phone conversation with Mr. Weagle. I wanted to give Mr. Weagle the opportunity to express that before the Standing Committee on Community Services.
MR. MORASH: The other option certainly he would have would be to apply again and I don't know, that may be in the process. He may have an application that is in the works now, but this application . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Maybe that's what we want to check on, because if he does have an application in the process, I don't want to complicate that . . .
MR. MORASH: That's right, if there's an application being worked on, we really shouldn't be hearing any of this until the completion of that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's why I am suggesting that maybe you can unofficially check and see where it sits in the process, if its moving anywhere or not because I don't want to mess that up.
MR. MORASH: I will check to see if there is an application pending and report back to the chairman.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. PYE: Madam Chairman, I just want to make it perfectly clear that, whether the application is pending or not, we're sitting here discussing this very issue, the individual through no fault of his own has lost - even though he had the promissory note and everything signed, sealed and delivered, the individual lost - the opportunity to get this grant to repair his home. That's the bottom line here. The fact that he makes a new application is none of our bloody business. The fact is that this individual I don't believe is making a new application because he's quite upset with the initial process. Therein lies the problem. I think that what we need to recognize is that this individual has a unique situation that may not be so unique at all. It may be that many Nova Scotians face this but yet he was the only one individual who spoke up.
I want to commend Kerry Morash who is his MLA for saying he has no problem with this individual appearing before the Standing Committee on Community Services, because even though I was the MLA for the other individual who spoke, I had no problem as well. I think that it is important for us as a committee to give citizens input from time to time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, I hear what you're saying, Jerry. This is all new ground to me. I am just treading along very carefully.
Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: Madam Chairman, with regard to the case in point, I would still stress what I had requested, and I appreciate the support of Mr. Gaudet in regard to having the department come in, because this might be just one example of what is beyond the control of the applicant in regard to trying to get things done in a timely fashion. I know constituents who have problems with their applications because of their own delays in getting the information back to the department; it was something that they had control of and they lost grants or potentially lost grants because they did not respond in a timely fashion to the department. So that's why I think it is important that we look at the department, the process, the program and talk about these circumstances in regard to what happens to the constituent in a case where it is within their control or beyond their control with regard to getting
information back to the department in a timely fashion, what happens to the grants or applications in those circumstances.
I understand these meetings are publicly open so if Mr. Weagle wants to come into town and be a witness and just listen in on the meeting and stuff and perhaps the MLA could ask questions on his behalf, that's no problem at all. But in regard to having Mr. Weagle come forward, I think you're going to get into personalities and personal information and data, you may have to have an in camera session to hear his particular complaint because I don't know if application concerns like that should be done in a public forum or not.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: I would just like to say this as a general caution. We're a Standing Committee on Community Services, which is a big umbrella. We have all kinds of people who are applying for assistance under Income Assistance, grants and loans under the housing development services section of the department and other programs. If we encourage those who are seeking those things to use our committee as a means to try to gain their ends, we could be, as I said before, opening up a big Pandora's box. I don't know if that's the direction in which we want to proceed. I do want to learn about Housing Services, I do want to learn about Community Services and how the department is being run, but those who are applying at some stage or other, whether they're appealing or they're disenchanted or disgruntled or wherever they stand with reference to their own applications, I think it would be diverting the committee from what it's set up to do, to have those people coming in here one by one and presenting their cases to us as if we could then go and lobby for them to try to get them the grant or whatever it might be.
MR. HENDSBEE: Madam Chairman, I'm concerned that this committee could either become a tribunal or appeals or a de facto function of the Ombudsman's Office. We're here to look at and review the department's process and if we know a constituent's circumstances that have an impact in regard to certain policies or how certain policies impact upon the constituents, then we should try to do it in an exploratory way, in a general fashion, but to go specifically into a case-by-case scenario, I think, as Mr. MacEwan has mentioned, that could be a Pandora's box and we could become an appeals court.
MR. MACEWAN: Or the referees.
MR. PYE: I just simply wanted to say that I don't see that as an action of this committee. I see that this committee would certainly look at each individual request that comes before the committee, much the same as if it's an organization, a group of people or one singular individual who wants to make a presentation or be a witness before the Standing Committee on Community Services. I trust the representatives on this committee to make a sensible decision on who will appear before the committee and so on.
I think that all I'm saying is that individuals should have the right to at least be acknowledged from time to time. I'm not saying that everyone will get the endorsement of the committee. Obviously it appears that this is the case today. All I'm saying is that this is somewhat unique. It was a unique situation before. This is extremely unique as well, in that a process has already been done, it's been followed through, it was a government process, and the government process broke down. However you want to deal with it, it broke down. That's what we need to know, why it broke down, and why, for this individual, it seems to be a problem, so that it will never happen again. As you said, without sounding redundant, we could make recommendations to government after hearing the individual. However, I am but one.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? We've already approved calling Housing Services to go through their program. I will ask the committee, do we call Mr. Weagle as well? Those opposed? (Interruptions) We will start that again.
Those opposed to calling Mr. Weagle as a witness to appear before the committee.
MR. MACEWAN: I don't really raise my arm all the way. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have to raise it high enough for me to count it. Those for, two. At this point I would say it's denied.
MR. HENDSBEE: Let the record show that Mr. Weagle could be present in the room when the department is having their presentation. (Interruptions)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think that's going a bit far.
MR. HENDSBEE: Because these are public meetings and the public is . . .
MS. STEVENS: He would traditionally get a transcript. He would be automatically sent a letter saying that at this time the committee didn't want to bring him forth, but they're calling the RRAP program. That would be the type of letter that would go out.
MR. MACEWAN: We have passed a motion on that. He wants to come in here and discuss "Crooked justice of the peace gets 2 years."
MR. PYE: No he doesn't.
MR. MACEWAN: He did. He said that is an example of government stupidity and laziness, appended examples follow.
MR. PYE: I think you're stretching, Paul. (Interruptions)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The last correspondence, which is very recent, is the Family SOS. Anybody with any thoughts? (Interruptions) How many do we have on our list now, Mora? We have a lot.
MS. STEVENS: Six.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: October, November, January, February, maybe March, April, May, I think we've pretty much exhausted it.
MR. PYE: I think we certainly could put them on the list as well, Family SOS, and hear from them.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I just got this, I haven't had a chance to find out . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: Aren't we having the Children's Aid Society come in? Isn't that one of the topics we had?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, probably somebody from the Children's Aid Society and somebody from the Youth Society who wrote the report.
MR. HENDSBEE: So these are very similar issues in nature, with child abuse and neglect and everything else.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Good point.
MR. HENDSBEE: So I just want to see if there is an opportunity that there could be a joint presentation or back-to-back presentations.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We've only just got this in and I haven't even had a chance to find out what exactly these folks do and where they sit in the process. Can we defer this one to the next meeting, maybe?
MR. PYE: I agree.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any objection to that? Okay, because we have a really big agenda at the moment. Let's see how we can fit them together.
Any further topics?
MR. GAUDET: When are we to meet again and who is our . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Our normal meeting time is the third Thursday of every month. We moved it to this time because I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and last week I was anticipating being really hectic and I was right. So, that's the reason it's the fourth Thursday this time.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So the next meeting, in October, would be . . .
MS. STEVENS: October 17th is the third Thursday.
MR. HENDSBEE: We're out of town that day.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're out of town, so I guess it's going to be the fourth.
MS. STEVENS: There happens to be five Thursdays in that month. So it would be October 24th.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, it will be the second-last Thursday.
MS. STEVENS: Right now with the scheduling of the witnesses, sometimes if they are given two dates and one of the dates was October 17th, of course, so that is out for one of the caucuses. October 24th is the hopeful date we want to sit on but there is always October 31st if we have to. (Interruptions)
We are looking at Thursday, October 24th from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m.
MR. GAUDET: The witness at that time?
MS. STEVENS: I'm hoping it's going to be Dr. Brendan Carr or the Youth Society. (Interruption)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, one of the two. (Interruptions)
Motion to adjourn.
MR. HENDSBEE: I so move, Madam Chairman.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:48 a.m.]