Evidence of meeting #49 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hoeppner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Gun violence, which includes suicide, has alone a cost annually in the U.S.A. calculated at $155 billion, with lifetime medical treatment costs per victim ranging from $37,000 to $42,000. I really feel that what you have said—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Order, please.
If there's going to be discussion, can it be sotto voce?
Thank you.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I really feel that this is such an important moment in Canadian history. I think it would be a tribute to those who have died at the hands of gun violence and violence in general. Those numbers are staggering.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
This seems to belong to another committee's work, not to the status of women committee. If we're talking about gun violence and other aspects of that, it should be another committee that looks into it, because those crimes apply to all, not just to women. I'm saying that this should be another committee's work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I was going to say that you have just challenged the chair again, Ms. Wong. I ruled that it is pertinent to this committee, because it is speaking specifically about the passing of a bill with regard specifically to the École Polytechnique massacre. That is why the bill was passed, so I think it is the business of this committee, because we're speaking to a specific event here.
Ms. Demers wants to say something. Then we'll move on.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do not wish to come back to what was said today, but we are talking about being unified behind something. I am wondering to what extent the desire to stand united behind something is truly real when, every time our opinion is taken into account, someone sets out to destroy it. I am having great difficulty believing that people want to stand united behind something when they say that it is my way or no way.
The gun registry was put in place because of the Polytechnique victims, following a battle waged over several years by the families of the victims and the survivors of the Polytechnique massacre. This commemoration is deserved and must be done. It is a commemoration that will prove to be essential in the course of things to come.
Furthermore, I would say that if today the victims and the families of the victims were listening to us discuss this, they would be very pleased to see that we want to adopt this motion because these people called out to us.
When we get to the vote, I would like it to be a recorded vote.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I believe one of our members was approached at the memorial for L'École Polytechnique Montréal. One of the mothers said that they have lost their daughters, but the one legacy they had was the registry. That is the legacy for their children. They can't have their daughters.
I want to add to that. It comes back to the gun registry. The World Health Organization said that the gun registry law in Canada cost $70 million and that by comparison, the total annual cost for firearm-related injuries in this country is $5.6 billion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'd like to point out some things to the committee, because it might determine or inform what you say.
This motion is asking the committee to report this to the House and asking that the committee hold a ceremony each year at this time, etc. If this is passed, it means that the committee will have to go to the House to get a motion of concurrence in the House. Is that not so? There would have to be moneys allocated to the committee to be spent on a ceremony.
I'm not speaking to the propriety of the motion. I'm speaking to some of things that the motion would kick-start, the domino effect of what would have to follow through if we passed the motion at all.
I think you should know this, because it would be taken to the House, and then we would have to seek money and would have to get concurrence in the House on it.
Is that right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If we all agree that this will happen, there would have to be concurrence in the House.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If it passes at the committee, there will have to be concurrence in the House. The committee should very well be aware, then, that what this will do is open up debate in the House that would be very harmful, I would think, and hurtful.
Madame Demers, I am trying here to see whether we could follow suit with what Mr. Van Kesteren said. I think he was very sincere in what he said about our being able to come together on certain things, and Ms. Demers is also asking for this.
I would ask you, as we discuss this, to understand that underlying both of these motions, one of which is not appropriate to this committee.... The intent in both of those motions is the idea of bringing together some sort of unity on something that is important to Canadians. I am just saying that.
Now, Candice, I'm sorry.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I have a couple of things.
I want to say, first of all, that I for one will do whatever I can—and I'm sorry, I'm going to become emotional—to not politicize the death of these girls: I will not argue my bill on the long gun registry.
In January 2008, a very close family friend lost their daughter. Her name was Joanne Hoeppner. She was eight months pregnant with her little girl, and she was shot. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. They haven't caught the guy who did it, but I'm sure it was drug-related. He shot through a door and he killed her. I will never forget being at the funeral and seeing Joanne in her coffin with her baby—Kiera Tetley was her name; they named the baby.
First of all, I will say God help me to come here and do what I believe in, but to not politicize when people lose their daughters. I have a 15-year-old daughter. I cannot imagine losing your daughter.
Why? It was because she was a girl. She was shot because she was a girl. I pray God will help me to not do that, and I look you in the eye and I know each one of you is here for the same reason.
I have lots of things I'd love to tell you about why I believe the long gun registry should end, and I know we disagree on that. My reasons are that I think there are other things we can do to protect women. I really, sincerely believe that, and I know that you disagree and I respect that. I really do respect it. But if we can find a way to honour these women and honour and support their families without going into the long gun registry debate.... And I know, Kirsty, as you said, that it was created as a monument, as a memorial. That is probably right; it was created as a memorial. But I'd like to go past a memorial and find a way to stop violence against women and gun crime.
I know we are disagreeing, Nicole; we're disagreeing on how. I will just tell you right now that this is all I'm going to say on this issue, because I will not debate the long gun registry here at this table under the same topic as the girls who lost their lives because they were women. I won't do it. I will just say that, and I will leave it at that.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I think we are missing the boat. We should be holding a commemorative ceremony not only in remembrance of the women killed by gunfire, but of all of those who have died through violence, be it by strangulation, by poisoning, by an edged weapon, through rape, that is what we should be commemorating. This is a day that should be commemorated nationwide, without any political overtones, because we know some of these women. They could be our children, our nieces. We must remember all of the women who have died through abuse of power, who have been victims of violence, killed at knifepoint, through strangulation, with bare hands, or who have been beaten to death. This is what we should be commemorating, all of these women who died because they were women. No matter what weapon was used, these women are dead, first and foremost, because they were women. This is what we should be commemorating.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Madam Chair, I would simply like to remind everyone that if we are so ardently defending this point of view today, it is because the survivors of the Polytechnique massacre are pleading with us to do so. The mother of a victim is begging us to do this. This is not a matter of politics, I am sorry; these are words that you are using that have no place in this context. These people are begging us to maintain the firearms registry. It is in honour of these people who are no longer with us; this is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of doing the right thing.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I reflect back on the words of my colleague here, and in my opinion this motion was clearly set out as a divisive motion. I think it was set out as a divide, as a committee motion, because you know how strongly linking those two together and not trying to understand the perspective of different places and different people.... For every person who talks to you.... When I lived in a big city, my perspective was very different from what it is now in terms of life and many things.
I think this motion was brought forward to be divisive and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Ms. McLeod, I think it's really not appropriate to suppose why the motion was brought forward. People can't suppose those things. We're discussing the substance of the motion, and not the intent behind it of anyone, for any political reason.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Clearly, this motion is going to come to a vote, and for any ceremony that is created out of it, it is going to be a divided group that celebrates it, because obviously our side will not be able to support the motion. If it goes ahead, it will be strictly a divisive action that really does not bring us together as a committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
When I introduced my motion...and I think everybody would agree to that too. Whether you agree with the intent or whether you agree with whether it was right or not, it was to unify this committee.
I will tell you, Nicole, that should we vote on this motion, I will reintroduce my motion and I will make it applicable. The end result will be that we will be divided, and the only people who will suffer are those very women you're talking about. To suggest that women on this side care less about women than women on that side is an insult, quite frankly. If we can't come together and decide that we're going to work for women, then the people who are going to suffer are those very groups we represent, those very women who are being abused, those very women who are suffering at the hands of violence. They are the ones who will be on the short end of the stick.
So I repeat, I will reintroduce my motion. It may be defeated, but I will reintroduce my motion, which will make it applicable. That was not my intent. My intent was to have us agree to come to a conclusion that we will, as a committee, because we believe.... All of us want the same thing for women, and for you to disagree with that is, in essence, saying, no, we really don't think you want what's good for women; you have some other alternative option.