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.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Because I don't really know about that too much.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
That bill was introduced by the Liberal government of the day. It was introduced as a memorial and a commemoration to the women who lost their lives. I assume the motives obviously would have been to gather information on individuals who owned firearms, and the motive, we were told at the time, was to collect data to help reduce gun crime in Canada. So at that time the budget was presented and it was going to cost approximately $1 million. Over the last almost decade, we have registered approximately seven million long guns in Canada. We do know that there are probably about 16 million long guns in Canada, so obviously a lot still are not registered.
But what that law did was start to collect information. It collected the serial and certificate number of individuals who already had a licence to own a long gun. So as that information was collected, they collected people's name, address, and phone number, again with the goal of ending violence against all Canadians, but specifically to end violence against women.
Then 10 years later we had two reports from the Auditor General, and what she reported was that it actually did not help reduce crime and in fact the costs were now close to $2 billion. The problem was that it was actually impossible to determine the costs for this $2 billion.
So there has been a lot of debate about this bill and about this piece of legislation. But again, without bringing forward my bill, I think what we've seen is that licensing even under this bill did change. Some would say that it maybe didn't change for the better, because previously police officers were able to intervene if they saw that somebody owned a firearm and there were problems. If maybe that person displayed behaviour that was criminal, they would have had a lot more ability to look at the licensing. And this might be something that needs to be looked at. But I won't get into that.
Unfortunately, the long gun registry has also been a way of collecting information on individuals, and it has been used in very harmful ways for law-abiding Canadians who are not abusers, who are not criminals. They are not using the long gun to kill women, men, children; they are using it to hunt and for sport shooting. And so this information has been collected on them. The database has actually been breached over 300 times and that's a very dangerous thing. So something that was created to protect Canadians has now been turned into something that is hurting Canadians. It is not helping to stop crime
So I would say that the bill, the piece of legislation, that this motion would want to commemorate actually should not be celebrated, but it should be seen for what it is: a Liberal boondoggle, a lot of money spent to do absolutely nothing not only for women but for children, for Canadians.
So obviously I won't be supporting this motion.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I hope that we will not go on for too much longer because afterwards we are supposed to celebrate, and I would prefer that we do it while we still like each other.
I am obligated to speak not only about the motion, but also about the registry that was established in 1995. The police forces are also in agreement with that, as we saw in the report that was tabled after the vote. The report was ready before the vote took place, but no one wanted us to know what the report contained. Information was being hidden from us.
I would also like to clarify something. The members of the families of the victims did not ask us to bring forward this motion. They asked us to do everything in our power to maintain the firearms registry. I believe that this motion would allow us to remind people of the reasons for which the firearms registry was created. It would allow us to have the energy to keep up the fight and to give these women survivors and these families the assurance that the registry will continue to exist.
I am convinced that it is not all hunters who will use their gun to kill their spouse, their daughter or their children. Unfortunately, often times hunters do use their gun to kill their spouse, their children, their family, when family conflicts arise. These are not habitual criminals, these are spontaneous criminals who commit this crime. They will commit only that crime, but they will nevertheless commit it with a long-barrelled gun.
If the police officers are unaware that there are firearms in the house, when a man who is accused of violence against his wife... If the policemen are even just aware of the fact that there is a weapon in the house, they will know how to act and they will retrieve the weapon.
We know that 88% of women who are killed are killed with long guns. This is a very important statistic, and I do not think that we can ignore the importance of the registry nor its establishment. On the contrary, its establishment was one of the most courageous actions we were able to take, despite the fact that it was very costly. However, today it is no longer that costly. It only costs 7 or 8 million dollars a year, which is very little.
At present, it is costing $7 million a year for Mr. Harper to get his face on television. In my opinion, we can spend $7 million a year to save the lives of women.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry, we've had quite a bit of discussion, so these points cover quite a range.
Mr. Van Kesteren, I really appreciate what you said at the beginning. You talked about respect, and yet you managed to take two potshots at this side, and from my perspective it's very unappreciated.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Not from here, it's not. I taught women's health at the university. I'm not sure why we're being asked to consult with our colleagues. I believe this motion has been brought to a committee and I believe the committee will make those decisions. It's the committee, not our colleagues.
Since the law was passed, the number of women who have been murdered by guns has dropped by one-third. This is why the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are so strongly opposed, and certainly Chief Blair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
I would like to suggest that you are free as a committee to continue this debate, but in the meantime perhaps you might like to go and get some food, because we're going to have bells at 5:15, and we have half an hour.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Okay, then we will call the vote. I don't think we have any other speakers left.
The motion says that in keeping with Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on the Status of Women hold a commemorative ceremony on December 5 of each year, which is the date on which Bill C-68, which is a law concerning long guns and certain other arms, received approval from the Senate and royal sanction in 1995. So it is asking this committee to hold a ceremony on that day to commemorate the royal assent and passage of that bill into law.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. This will be a recorded vote.
Okay, we have a tie. I have to tell you, I searched every single piece of this thing to see if the chair really did have to vote. I think it is a difficult issue.
I don't have to give you the reasons why I vote the way I vote, by the way. I like to do it because I like people to know. I always have a reason for what I do; I work it out in my head.
On the weekend I received a personal call from Suzanne Laplante-Edward, who is the mother of Anne-Marie Edward, one of the women killed in the massacre. This woman is 70. She was 50 years old when her daughter was killed. She begged me—she sent a letter to everyone in the House—as a mother and as a woman and as a parliamentarian, to please ensure that this law that was passed on December 5, 1995, remains.
I will give you her words, which she said to me very clearly. She said she wanted me to repeat them. She said, “Nothing will bring my daughter back, nor the daughters from other families who were killed. We know this will not bring them back. But we believe this law will stand as a memorial and a testament to support and protect mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, and nieces who are threatened in the future: women who are going to be killed purely because they are women. This was meant to be a legacy so that our daughters did not die in vain.”
I believe it would be very difficult for me to vote against this motion. I have read the statistics. I spoke to Madame Laplante-Edward personally. I was very moved by what she said. As she said, nothing will bring her daughter back. The statistics did say that since that bill was passed there has been a one-third decrease in the number of women killed with guns in this country. She said, “It doesn't matter if it saves only one woman. I think it is important.”
I believe I will have to vote for the motion in honour of Madame Laplante-Edward and the families who wish to see this become a legacy for their children.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The motion is now passed, and we can enjoy the food.
Those who want to call adjournment, please do so.
Ms. Duncan moves it.
The meeting is adjourned.