Justice Committee on March 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Ménard, I think we're all on the same page on that one. The importance here is that Vancouver has been the most recent hot spot of organized and drug-related crime. I think the wish was that we go to Vancouver first and then we can go across the country and visit a number of other cities.

In terms of the cities that have been identified, we've heard Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Those are four cities. That would take up at least four of our meeting dates. The one complicating factor is that we expect shortly we're going to have Bill C-14 and Bill C-15 come before us. As you know, it's the government's preference that we deal with those bills right away. I did hear some comments when the minister was present that there was a willingness to fast-track those bills and ensure that they get passed into law.

Mr. Storseth, you had a question.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'm hesitant to have such an abbreviated trip in the country if that's indeed what the committee wants to do. As you know, the minister spent a great deal of time last year going all over the country talking to people. He brought forward some legislation here. I think the best thing this committee can spend its time doing is dealing with this legislation and getting it through our committee as expeditiously as possible. But if the committee does want to travel to some of these areas that have seen some very serious organized crime, and drug offences, I must insist that the committee would look at going to Edmonton and Calgary, as well as Winnipeg. These are communities that are close to my riding and that are affected by the same organized crime and the same drug issues. I think it would be pertinent for the committee to go to these communities as well.

I think it's very dangerous to only go to the latest place where we've had some serious offences. I think it's important. Edmonton is a city where we've had a lot of these issues. If the committee wishes to travel, I would recommend Edmonton as well. That's if we do it as Mr. Norlock was saying, as a smaller group, so that the larger committee can stay here in Ottawa and do the work that we need to do to get this legislation passed as expeditiously as possible so we can get on to the legislation that Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. LeBlanc were hoping to deal with as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Norlock.

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

I have one suggestion. I'm very concerned that when the committee members go to these places to listen to people from the community, a lot of people work from nine to five, and if there are groups or individuals who need to be heard and who can't take a day off work, then I think the committee should be prepared to have an evening sitting and be able to be sensitive to the people who have to work nine to five, Monday to Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I don't have a problem with sitting in the evening, if that can accommodate the needs of certain witnesses. However, I would not be comfortable with the idea that we might be doing parallel work. In my view, all members of this committee need information on Bill C-14 and C-15 and on organized crime.

If it's fine with the committee, perhaps we could consider travelling during a break week. I know this requires some effort because it's time that we don't have. I would like to move a motion to that effect. It doesn't mean my colleagues have to agree with me. It's too late for next week, but if we have to split up and we do not all get the same information, then I cannot agree to this. I want to examine Bill C-14. I also want us to look at the whole question of organized crime. However, everyone must have the same information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc, and then Mr. Dosanjh.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Réal Ménard. If the committee travels, then we must all travel together, just as we must be together to hear from witnesses on this bill. Let me reiterate the offer made by my colleague Ujjal Dosanjh when the minister was here earlier. We intend to cooperate in order to do a quick study, both in the House and in committee, of bills C-14 and C-15. We see no reason to delay the study of these bills. We have even offered to study these bills fairly quickly.

I think this is the wrong decision. We cannot examine bills if we are travelling. We believe it will be important to travel when we turn our attention to organized crime, as Réal suggested. We're open to the idea of visiting some cities, including the ones suggested by Brian Storseth, but we don't think we'll be able to travel during a break week. People plan their schedules for these weeks well in advance. The committee will have to travel when Parliament is in session. We'll simply have to try and cover as much ground as possible over five days. We could hold meetings at the same time. That is what we are suggesting. We will work in an appropriate fashion to complete the study of the bills as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit is next, and then Mr. Moore.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding Mr. Ménard's motion, I think there are two or three questions that we need to ask ourselves.

First of all, I'm not comfortable with the idea of having a small group of members travel. It's not because I want to go along too, but because I would like to hear what the witnesses have to say. It's unfortunate, but when I don't have this opportunity to hear them in person, everyone tends to recount events from their own perspective, which might differ from my own. And then, I will be obliged to work on bills C-14 and C-15 without the benefit of having heard the witnesses. Therefore, I suggest that if ever it comes to this, we arrange for videoconferencing services. That way, when our colleagues are in Vancouver, we can see the witnesses from our vantage point here and perhaps ask them questions. We've already done something similar in the case of witnesses from Great Britain. I don't have a problem with videoconferencing. It's much less expensive than plane fare.

Secondly, I agree with Mr. LeBlanc. I'm not sure if that is the impression he wants to convey, but he did say that he wants to support our two bills. Do I really need to travel to Vancouver in order to study these bills? No. Do I really need to hear from witnesses? Maybe. Can they be called to Ottawa? Certainly. So then, I find Mr. LeBlanc's suggestion rather interesting. These two bills should be examined quickly. However, perhaps we shouldn't move too quickly. Haste is not always a good thing.

As for travelling to Vancouver, a lovely city where the temperature just might be more pleasant, I would point out that Montreal was the scene of the biggest police raid in recent years. At issue were drug problems and street gangs. So then, I would invite people to come to Montreal instead of Vancouver. It's much closer, travel costs would be lower and you may see some different realities. I'm willing to concede that there have been some problems recently in Vancouver, that gunshots were fired in the street, just like in the days of Al Capone. That's a whole other situation. However, the biggest police raid took place in Montreal and the main reason for it was drug problems and street gangs.

Montreal is not far from Ottawa. Neither is Toronto. I suggest then that you look no further. If you decide to make the trip and to have only one member per party accompany the committee, then I suggest you arrange for a videoconference feed so I can follow the proceedings—because I dislike flying— and even ask questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Before I go to Mr. Moore, could I make a suggestion?

Mr. Comartin, your subamendment appears to have been accepted by the initial mover. Could we just leave it as part of the initial motion? Is that all right?

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

That's fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks for that, Chair.

So Mr. Comartin's subamendment says what? Does it also say we'd travel to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, we would start with Vancouver.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Is that the whole subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We've now just made it part of Mr. LeBlanc's motion.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Then I guess I'd be interested to know, what are we talking about in terms of a time commitment?

We just had the Minister of Justice here. My number one concern, of course, is seeing that we do the work that we need to do to have more effective legislation. We have two bills that are coming through.

For those who are promoting this, we don't have a final list of cities. I've heard Vancouver and some others mentioned. What type of time commitment are we talking about? Are we talking about doing this over the course of a number of weeks, where we'd take our regular sitting day and jet off on a Monday to Vancouver, then be back here on Tuesday? Or are we taking a whole week to do everything in one week? I haven't heard the specifics logistically speaking.

Maybe this is something the chair or the clerk can speak to. Logistically, what are the movers intending? Because there are a number of different ways something like this could be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I agree with Mr. Moore. We have a number of proposals, a number of cities that we want to visit, and a number of ways we could do this. I think we need to bring this discussion to a focus and find out exactly what we want to do.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

The reason I mention this is it makes a big difference. If we were to take this city list, which keeps growing over the course of our regular meetings, and just spend a day in each city over any number of weeks, it would literally take weeks.

I think it's fundamental that we know whether or not we are going to do this all in one week, or whether it's going to be on our regular meeting days that we leave for a city.

If someone wants to put forward a proposal, that would be useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, and then Mr. LeBlanc.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We need to clear up some confusion. As I see it, there are two issues confronting us, the first being a study of organized crime. As I understand it, once we have initiated our study on organized crime, the committee will take a full week to travel to all of the cities on the list. I don't have a problem with that. We're all mindful of the fact that Bill C-14, must be passed quickly. I remind you that the bill has not yet been referred to this committee. I am prepared to move quickly. Liberal colleagues have suggested to the House Leader that only one person be permitted to speak to the bill at second and third reading, so that we move forward quickly. We won't consent to that, because this bill provide for serious penalties for offenders. However, we are prepared to move quickly on this bill.

If, Mr. Chair, you have information to the effect that the bill is about to be referred to us this week, then I suggest we set aside the issue of organized crime—the focus of the proposed study—and get down to business right away. I think it's realistic to think that we can report back to the House in a week. Bill C-14 is a priority because of what is happening and, contrary to what Mr. Petit said, with all due respect, Montreal is not Vancouver. The two cities are not interchangeable. First, we need to know when the government intends to refer the proposed legislation to us. We've been waiting since last week and we still haven't seen the bill. The House Leader's office told us that the priority was Bill C-10. As it happens, that bill has been adopted. When the steering committee meets tomorrow, Mr. Chair, if you inform us that you have spoken to the minister or to the parliamentary secretary and we can expect the bill to be referred to us on Wednesday, then I'm prepared to make this our priority. We could begin examining the legislation as early as Thursday and new week, hold several meetings and then pass the bill. However, we cannot do two parallel studies. The two bills should be examined separately and our priority must be Bill C-14. Bill C-15 is something entirely different. But if that is what the committee wants, the Bloc Québécois will cooperate to ensure that we move quickly to study Bill C-14. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us when the House will refer the bill to committee? This hasn't yet happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

A point of order, Mr. Lee?

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

On a point of order, it seems to be the intention of the committee to move this part of the meeting in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No.