Status of Women Committee on Dec. 10th, 2009

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

And what?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You are obviously disrespecting the chair. You cannot do that in a committee. Let me tell you this, Ms. Hoeppner. The bottom line is that there is decorum in how we speak to each other--not in what we say, but how we say it. And if one presumes to say to other people that they do not have the right to make decisions on their own and you are then deciding that they do not have the integrity to make their own decisions, that's disrespectful of your colleagues. Please think about how you phrase things. I'm just asking you be respectful and to have some decorum in how you speak to your colleagues.

Mr. Van Kesteren has spoken very clearly about respect for each other. Let us really try to phrase.... You have points to make. I am not stopping you from making your points. How you make them is something that I must be concerned with. So please be careful how you speak to your colleagues. By insinuation, you are saying that they have no integrity in their own decision-making.

I'm sorry.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Chair, you're not being fair. Forgive me.

We listened to Ms. Mathyssen. She had a long speech, and there were things in there that some of us didn't agree with, but she was given that opportunity. Madam Duncan made some points that we would strongly disagree with, and you allowed her to speak, rightfully so. Nicole, you got pretty passionate, and I understand that. I love that about you. She's a passionate woman, and that's a great thing. You weren't asked to tone that down.

I think that Candice was just giving her opinion. Not her opinion--she was making a very valid point. Are we talking about a commemorative occasion, or are we talking about the gun registry? If we're talking about the gun registry, now we open up a whole new topic of discussion, and she has that right to remind the NDP member and the Liberal member that, listen, you're not being consistent with your own party. She has that right to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Of course she has the right to say that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Then she should be able to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

And there's a difference between passion, which Ms. Hoeppner showed very much at the early part when she spoke.... She was very passionate, she was moved to tears. I did not stop her at that time. It's appropriate for a member to be passionate and to be moved. I think that what I heard was an insinuation that I thought was disrespectful. Of course. if Ms. Hoeppner had wished to point it out, she could have said I would like to point out to the honourable member that some of her people did not vote for this. That's a different thing. It's not to think about what you should be doing and how you should be making that decision. That's a different thing.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Would you give her the opportunity to address it in that way. then? Because I think that's what you want her to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Absolutely. Maybe sometimes we need to think about how we say what we say.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You just said exactly the thing you're telling me I'm not supposed to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, because I'm speaking to decorum, Ms. Hoeppner. These are not equal things. I'm speaking to the decorum in the House. I have been in committees where chairs have made members apologize for the way they insinuated other members were behaving. I do not believe that's appropriate. I don't want us to go there. I'm just saying, Ms. Hoeppner, make your point--it's very clear--but think about how you make it. That's all I'm asking you for, because I'm trying to keep decorum and some respect here.

You may continue your point, Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I am still not sure how to say I ask you all to put these thoughts into your brain and consider them as you're making your decision. I'm trying to say “think about”, but I won't put it that way.

The Bloc has been consistent. But all the other parties are divided on whether the long gun registry has helped stop violence against women. Niki Ashton, one of my colleagues from Manitoba, agrees. If we're going to do a remembrance, let's remember women who have died because of gun violence. It's not certain whether the long gun registry has stopped gun violence. I'm not sure if members are aware that Mr. Lépine had a licence to own a gun. Mr. Lépine, who committed these horrific acts, came from an abusive family. He saw his father be very abusive. He went through a lot of tragedies. He was a new Canadian. He obviously was a very disturbed man, but he got a licence to own a firearm.

First of all, we need to look at this process. My bill does not end the licensing process. This man got a licence to own a gun, so even if the registry had been in place and he had registered every one of his firearms, he still would have gone and committed this horrific crime.

We're talking about the long gun registry, which is a public safety issue. We should talk about licensing and who is allowed to own a firearm legally. There are some people who should never own a firearm. If they're criminals, they're going to go and steal one. But the licensing process denies legal access to a firearm to people who have a history of mental illness, domestic abuse, violence, or criminal activity.

It should be noted that police officers 94% of the time check the long gun registry database to find out who owns a firearm. For example, when they're going on a domestic dispute call and they want to find out if this person is licensed to own a firearm, they immediately look up the name and address. Under my bill, they would continue to have access to that information. About 2% of the time, they're looking at the serial and certificate number of the firearm. That's what the registration keeps track of. That does nothing, unfortunately, to stop bad people from having a firearm.

So if we're going to talk about the long gun registry, let's talk about the facts of the long gun registry. Let's talk about how women are dying because men are committing acts of violence against them. Let's talk about how right now there are no minimum sentences. Usually, they get a slap on the wrist if they commit a crime against a woman, especially in domestic disputes. I think we would all agree that this is unfair and wrong.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I have a point of order. We're spending lots of time on this, but we're not debating the gun registry. We're debating—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

We want to do a memorial—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, a point of order is being made.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I feel we're debating something that we will be debating next year. We shouldn't debate it here. The motion suggests that we commemorate the enactment of a law. So I feel we're out of order, Madam Chair.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

But she already ruled on that. You said we had to discuss whether we agreed with the premise of the gun memorial. That is why I'm speaking to it, because of your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Hoeppner, agreeing with the premise of commemorating the passage of an act is different from debating the act itself. You're agreeing with the premise of the act. The act was the long gun registry. The motion seeks to commemorate the day the act was passed in the House. That's what is being discussed.

People are saying we are talking about that. There's a certain amount of leeway in our discussions. But you have moved into debating your bill, Ms. Hoeppner. You were literally debating. I gave you some leeway in this because I feel that this is a difficult discussion.

But we're not discussing your bill. We are discussing the passage of an act on December 5, 1995. Some people would like to commemorate that act. We're not discussing your bill. It's not on the table and it's not within the purview of this committee to discuss it. If you wish to discuss the issue in hand, which is the law that was passed in 1995, you can certainly do so.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was a little confused, but I think you brought that out. In other words, because this motion has been brought forward, it is proper for us to discuss the long gun registry law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Whether you agree with the one that was passed.... I don't know what is so difficult on this issue.

We're saying let us commemorate a law that was passed, Bill C-68; on December 5, 1995, it became law. All right. People are suggesting that that day and that thing be commemorated, that that event be commemorated. Now, in order to do so, you may say, well, I can't commemorate it because I don't agree with it; I didn't think it was a good thing in those days and I didn't like that law. But we couldn't move now into another bill that is on the table. We're speaking to this. You may say, I do not wish to do this because I did not agree with that law then and I don't want to commemorate something that I don't agree with. This is what we're discussing. So you have to mention that particular law, Bill C-68, that was passed on December 5.

But we're not discussing further laws that are on the table. That is where Ms. Hoeppner was straying a little bit, and I think that Ms. Zarac made that point.

So I think it's pretty simple, if everyone were to listen and try to understand what we're moving here, because we're trying to do a balancing act here. It's my job as the chair, whether people like it or not, to move you back to what we're discussing, back to the balancing act that we're doing, and not to allow us to tangentially go into other areas.

Thank you.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Just so that I understand, and I think I do, if we ask Ms. Hoeppner to zero in on it--because I don't know a whole lot about that law--and if she were to zero in on that law and never mind the one she's bringing forward--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're not discussing that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

--that would be legitimate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

So why don't you talk about that law?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The long gun law, Bill C-68.