Justice Committee on March 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just for clarification, did you vote against the supplementary estimates?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I was going to, and I don't think it got recorded. My hand was up in between.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It is recorded now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sure the clerk was unclear as to what I was doing. She had every right to be unclear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

But you are on record as opposing it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

If it just shows “on division” I'll be satisfied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Moving on to Mr. Ménard's motion, the last time we discussed whether we would be travelling to Vancouver for the organized crime study. There was also a suggestion that travel should be extended to other cities. I open the floor for debate on that issue.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I don't wish to be obstinate, but I see two sides to this. I fully understand the need for the people of this country to know that this committee is taking seriously the gang violence and the issues surrounding gang violence, such as guns, drugs, etc. I'm also cognizant of the fact that we're in some pretty tough economic times.

My original reticence has been tempered, but I'm wondering if the committee might envisage a reduced group doing this, with one person from each party. They could come back to us and we could debate what they saw and heard. That way we would get a good balance.

It's just a thought for consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Is there anybody else?

Perhaps I should read the motion so we can refresh our minds:

Given that the violence between rival gangs in British Columbia has instilled public fear; given that this violence has led to the death of four innocent victims; it is moved that, in its study on the state of organized crime in Canada, the justice committee travel to British Columbia to hear testimony from the Solicitor General, Mr. John Van Dongen, and any other relevant witnesses.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I find my colleague's motion to be an enlightened one worthy of our consideration. Since 2004, that is since we've had a minority government, I don't believe that full committees have been travelling. The whips tend to keep track of attendance in the House, which is clearly a legitimate concern. If the committee wishes to have a reduced quorum and delegation, then I will not oppose it.

Of course, we would need to know what this would mean in actual fact, but I think our colleague's motion is reasonable. I'm not saying that we need to visit each and every city. If we visited Montreal, Toronto, one city in Atlantic Canada and one city out West, I think that would suffice in terms of keeping in touch with communities.

I will not oppose Mr. Norlock's amendment, if that is what the committee wants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm a bit concerned. Maybe we should hear from the Liberals on this, but there was an amendment to this and then another amendment I made. My amendment isn't necessary unless the Liberals move an amendment that we travel to other cities.

I don't know if we have some indication from them as to what they're going to be doing. I think they had a list of four or five other cities they wanted us to travel to. They were doing that as an amendment, so it was in order, Mr. Chair. If that is going to be in order, I will want to move my subamendment that the first city we go to be Vancouver.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Comartin, let me check with the clerk to see whether in fact a formal amending motion was made.

There was an amending motion made by Mr. Murphy, and that was to extend the scope of the visits to other cities.

Mr. Comartin, just to clarify, you were--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I had moved as a subamendment to that subamendment that the first city we go to be Vancouver.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

So we're clear about what's on the table right now?

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have no objections to our going to Toronto, but shouldn't we be sending a message at this time, namely that we're concerned about the tensions reported in the media. Outbreaks of gunfire are being reported. The Quebec media are reporting on events taking place in British Columbia. Why Toronto and not British Columbia? I'd like Mr. Comartin to explain to me the rationale for his amendment. I'm not calling into question that he is a rational person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I already gave my explanation, Mr. Chair, but Mr. Ménard wasn't paying attention. I explained that at this stage, it was very important to let the City of Vancouver know that we are concerned about everything that is going on in that city. If it were 2005, my message would be no different, except that Toronto would be the first stop on our list.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

But why do you want the committee to visit Toronto?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Toronto wasn't on the list.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do you want us to start with Toronto, or with Vancouver?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With Vancouver.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Fine! I agree.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'll repeat it because he isn't listening.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Comartin, but I misunderstood you. Usually you are so clear. Right away I feel guilty.