Justice Committee on March 9th, 2009

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This is a public meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

This is a public meeting. It's a motion that should be public, in my mind.

I'll move to Mr. LeBlanc and hopefully we can wrap this up.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Sure, Mr. Chairman.

In the effort to try to arrive at some consensus, I think Réal's point is a good one. We shouldn't see this as an either/or proposition. I've accepted that the legislation should be a priority. We should take the bills separately.

My understanding--and I'm going by memory, Rob--is that they're being debated in the House as early as Wednesday of this week. That was the plan on some calendar I saw last week. So they may in fact be disposed of on Wednesday or Thursday of this week in the House and then referred to the committee.

I'm going by what Brian Murphy was telling me after the last meeting. I think the idea, to answer your question, Rob, was that we would have a one-week trip, or maybe two one-week trips, but we would start with one week. We would try to travel as a committee to as many of these cities as we can logistically. The chair and the clerk can come up with a proposal of what might work: do a five-day week, but a sitting week, where the committee would travel and the whips would allow the committee to travel while we were sitting.

That study itself is not necessarily part of the study of Bill C-14 or Bill C-15. They're complementary. They would be overlapping to some degree, but the study of the legislation is separate, and we would work with the government and the other opposition parties to try to have a very brief study--two committee sittings or something--of Bill C-14 and not necessarily interfere with the trip.

Realistically, the earliest time that we could travel is either the week before Easter.... We're three or four weeks away from being able to do a one-week trip, so somebody should come up with a proposal of what a one-week trip might look like. Realistically, we'll be dealing with Bill C-14 in the committee in the first week we're back after the break anyway, so one doesn't necessarily replace the other.

If we're going to travel, it's going to be the week before the Easter weekend, which is only three sitting weeks from now anyway, or even when we come back from Easter. I think somebody should work on a proposal for what a five-day trip would look like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I believe Mr. LeBlanc makes a good point. Perhaps the way we could do it is simply pass the motion that we're going to do a study where we travel to a number of cities, and refer to the steering committee, which will be meeting tomorrow. I'll also get the clerk to look at times and dates and when this might work.

We'll also consult with the government and make sure this works with Bills C-14 and C-15 so that we don't neglect or delay them. Then we'll come back to you with a proposal on Wednesday, because next week, of course, we have our break. Next week there won't be any sitting of the committee unless we receive other instructions.

Does that sound good?

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to move a kind of subamendment to the subamendment. Since it's likely that only one representative per party will travel, several others will have to stay behind in Ottawa. I would like arrangements to be made for videoconferencing. I'm sorry, but I need to see the witnesses that you will be hearing from. I'm a visual person and I need to see and hear them. Several departments have videocameras that they can lend to us. Meetings will take place at the hotel, the cameras will be rolling and I will get to see the witnesses. Sightseeing isn't all that you will be doing. It's important that I be able to follow the proceedings. I'm not someone who enjoys gallivanting across the country.

What is it exactly that you, Mr. Chair, and the other committee members intend to do? If I understand correctly, one person per party will be going along on the trip. Mr. Comartin's party will have 100% representation, the Bloc Québécois, 50% and the Liberals, one third. In the case of our party, one fifth of the members on the committee will be represented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Petit, you may have misunderstood. I think the understanding was that the whole committee would travel. I'm sure we'll understand if individual members have other commitments on one day or another, but I believe that so far the sentiment at this table is that the committee would travel as a whole.

I will share with you that I'm reluctant to go to the expense of travelling with the committee, but we also have a crisis in many of the cities across Canada. It's a problem with organized crime. I think they're expecting governments at all levels to respond. By actually meeting with constituents in the most affected cities, I think we're discharging our responsibilities as elected members of this House. As much as I'm reluctant to go to this expense, given the circumstances and the state of crime in some of our big cities, I think it's worthwhile to do this.

Monsieur Petit, I don't believe the understanding you had is correct. I think the understanding is for the whole committee to travel as members are able to.

Again, Mr. LeBlanc, I'm assuming that you're incorporating the suggestions about referring this to the steering committee as part of your motion.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Then we don't have to deal with Mr. Comartin's subamendment or any others.

Is that acceptable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It seems like we have consensus here, so I'll assume that the motion has passed.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's it for the public part of our meeting. We are going to go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]