MARLENE JENNINGS, JOE COMARTIN, RAYNALD BLAIS, WHAT DO THEY KNOW ABOUT THE COFFIN AFFAIR? (SECOND AND LAST PART)
Here is the second and last part of the proceedings of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I invite you to read what our members of Parliament had to say on this occasion. Many of you have assiduously read the documents that I have posted on this blog. I also know that for many of you, the Coffin affair is no more a mystery. I’ll let you discover the accuracy of the statements made by the members of that Committee regarding the Coffin affair. Please note that this report was adopted in November 2006. We are still awaiting a decision from the Department of Justice of Canada to take a decision.
Please let your feedback be known in posting your comments on this blog.
PART II
Mr. Joe Comartin:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his comments.
I think the Conservative government will tell us that the minister will receive a report from his officials and that our comments must not influence him or something like that. However, the government might also say that it wants things to happen fast and that enough time has passed. The government might say that this is not the best way to go about this review and that we could do it some other way. In that case, it might say that it is up to the government to decide whether to continue with the review or to replace it with another that will move faster and have a broader mandate.
This is why I suggest we support this motion today.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, it is with some humility that I rise today to ask—
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Is the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse rising to ask a question?
(1600)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
We are in the period for questions and comments.
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has the floor.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as you see, we are still getting used to parliamentary procedures.
It is with some humility that I rise today to speak of an event that took place February 10, 1956. It is a tragic event that also sowed the seeds for an apparent injustice.
I want to state in this House, and in particular to my colleague, as a representative of the Conservative members from Quebec, that we are concerned about this matter. We have listened to the debate with great attention.
Of course, a great deal has been written in Quebec about the Coffin affair, but more important, it sowed the seeds for an injustice. Whether it happens today or took place in the past, injustice is unacceptable in a democratic society such as ours. Where this occurs, we must rise above partisan considerations to ensure that the State assumes it full responsibilities and that justice is seen to be done.
This motion has been presented at a time when our government has clearly demonstrated its desire to restore public confidence in our legal and judicial institutions. In that light, the minister will take note of the motion and, if that is the will of the House of Commons, will act in a timely manner and within his powers. Under the law, for the minister to initiate such a procedure, there must be new information or significant information that was not necessarily brought to the attention of the court and that raises a reasonable doubt, namely, that an improper judgment may have been rendered.
The issue before us today is really to ensure that justice has been done. Naturally, that is what our government intends to do.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to address some questions to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.
First, I understand that he is not necessarily familiar with this case, and I can understand that. That is one thing; however, he must be very careful what he says.
He appears to be saying that we should leave this matter with the government, and that they will make a very good decision on this matter. I would like to believe him, but that is not what we are discussing today. It is not a matter of whether or not the government will make a good decision.
There is a process of analysis that calls for an official to review this file and, after doing so, to submit one or more recommendations to the minister, who will make a decision. At that point, one may or may not criticize the minister’s decision.
We are saying today that this debate seeks to ensure that the minister’s decision or the review takes place quickly. We do not want to intervene in the judicial or administrative procedures involved in analysis of this case. But we do want to ensure that the minister does not delay in rendering a decision on this matter, given the controversial and historic nature of this event that took place more than 50 years ago. That is why I said every day that we wait is a day lost that could mean the loss of possible evidence.
I do not know if my colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse has been made aware of the latest news, but some people were talking to the media and they said their father was the killer of the American hunters. Several books have been written on this subject, including one by Alton Price and two books by Senator Jacques Hébert. They, too, are part of this story.
I invite the member for Lévis—Bellechasse to make a commitment but of a different kind.
(1605)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. Members will certainly understand that I cannot necessarily speak for the minister, who must look closely at all the implications of the motion before us. However, I believe there is no problem in recognizing the historic reality of this event which, as I mentioned earlier, goes beyond any partisan considerations.
Of course, we now have the will as well as the process. I can assure my colleague opposite that the political will is there to ensure that justice is finally done. Unfortunately, in this case, these events happened over 50 years ago. In a way, I think it is important to take all the necessary steps to ensure that people have confidence in our justice system.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I do not want this to become a dialogue, but I do want to have a clear understanding of what the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was saying in his remarks.
Did I understand correctly? Does he intend to vote in favour of this motion?
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor for my speech? I heard that we were resuming debate. Therefore I am rising on debate.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
If you rise now, it will close the debate.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that no other member wishes to speak? Is that correct?
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
That is correct.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to—
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
You are the last speaker and you have 20 minutes for your speech.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will make the best of that time.
First, I am honoured and very proud to address this issue today, for a number of reasons.
I was born in the Gaspé Peninsula, and I was only a few years old when these events occurred. Therefore, I do not actually remember those events, but I do remember my parents and people in my community talking about them. I remember that people from the Gaspé region expressed their views about this issue on a number of occasions. I also remember that, at one point in our history, that event took place and several books were written about what really happened. Titles such as I accuse the assassins of Coffin and To Build a Noose are telling enough to give an idea of what really happened.
More recently, I do remember a family, Wilbert Coffin's family, coming to my office, in February of last year. I was a bit familiar with the case, because I had had the opportunity to discuss it with Cynthia Patterson a few times.
Today, I am taking part in the possible rehabilitation of Wilbert Coffin, long after an event which, in my opinion and in the opinion of my community, of people in the region and of Wilbert Coffin's family, was very much an injustice done to that individual. In this sense, I feel very proud and honoured. When I met family members for the first time, I met people who were bitter towards the justice system. However, I saw in the eyes of Marie Stewart, Wilbert Coffin's sister, and in the eyes of Jim, Wilbert Coffin's son, that they still had a bit of confidence left in that system. They feel it is not too late to rehabilitate Wilbert Coffin's name.
That is how I felt, and I think it is important that I be able to express that feeling now. In such instances, you feel like there is a big burden on your shoulders, but at the same time you realize that you are part of a wonderful family, that of the Bloc Québécois. I imagine that the same is true in the other political families. We know that we can rely on colleagues to give us a hand. The first person who lent me a hand was the hon. member for Hochelaga, our justice critic. When I knocked on his door to inquire about his interest and intentions, he immediately got on board and, in March, we met with the Coffin family together. We looked into the case with a very open mind, given the need to consider every possible way of ensuring that justice is done, purely and simply.
When the hon. member for Hochelaga agreed to meet the family, this made us, namely the family members and myself, feel much greater solidarity with the cause of justice.
I am well aware of the fact that, before us, many have looked into the Coffin affair to try to have justice done. I can think, for example, of Alton Price, who wrote To Build a Noose, and of Jacques Hébert, who wrote two books and took a public stand on this issue.
(1610)
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to them because there were people before us who tried to ensure that justice was done. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
It is never too late, though, to do what is right. There is good reason, as well, to do it now in light of all that has happened recently, particularly when we heard Mr. Cabot’s daughter say publicly that “the man who killed the American hunters was my father”. That says a lot. It is not just anyone saying anything. It is a daughter saying that her own father was the killer. That is the situation we face today. We should pay special tribute to Ms. Micheline Cabot, who spoke out so that justice could be done. She showed a lot of courage.
Other people have also worked on this case, such as family members. I am thinking in particular of the four series of petitions that I submitted, and soon I will be submitting a fifth. People all across Quebec signed them, but especially those in the Gaspé region. With the petition I received today from the hands of Wilbert Coffin’s very own sister, Marie Coffin, 1317 names have been added to the nearly 2000 we already had. In all there are nearly 4000 names. That is very significant in a region like ours because the total possible number of signatures is not huge. We do not live in the middle of a big centre or a city like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, where there are millions of people. In our region, only a few thousand names are possible. Nearly 4000 people have already signed the petition and simply requested that this matter be reviewed in order to clear Mr. Coffin’s name.
All these messages are focused on one objective, that justice be done. This requires a number of procedures. That is why the debate today is intended at most to present the case in its full context—a context in which a mistake was made that can now be set right, at least to some extent, a situation in which there is a family, the Coffin family, that is still living today with these terrible memories of something that no one would wish on his worst enemy, that is, to see someone headed for the gallows and executed for a crime he did not commit. That is the situation in which this family finds itself. That is how the members of this family feel. That is why these people have to be able to count on us and on Parliament to ensure that justice is done. As I said earlier, Jim and Marie still have some sparkle in their eyes. They both say they still have confidence in the justice system. It did them a great wrong, but they still have confidence in it. That is the message I am getting from these people that I wanted to convey to the House today.
When the time comes to vote on this motion, I hope the vote will be unanimous. We will be able to vote freely according to our conscience. The idea here today is not to fix everything, but to rectify a historical injustice. We cannot change the past.
(1615)
I was reading a book a few moments ago. I have already read many books on the history of Gaspésie that explore the Coffin affair. Obviously, this file is very important locally, within Gaspésie, but also nationally, thanks to media coverage. Of course, the case has received extensive media coverage in Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. It was also talked about in Quebec City, but is even being talked about throughout Canada. This is part of our history, and at the same time, concerns the last person executed in Canada. The death penalty was eliminated afterwards, because we realized, rightly, that that was going too far. I do not think we will ever return to such a time.
It is very interesting to note the support that is coming in from all over. I know that Mary, Jim and the other individuals currently involved in this struggle can count on me and the Bloc Québécois, but I hope they can also count on the other parties. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party, the government, has not spoken out as a party. I cannot understand this. I dare say, it is making a mistake by not speaking out at this time, and is behaving irresponsibly. However, the government still has time to voice an opinion and to assume its responsibility.
I would like to know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): You still have eight and a half minutes.
Mr. Raynald Blais: That is what I thought but I also thought that you wanted me to conclude.
That will allow me to express again the opinion of the people from the area who remember that story. In short, their impression is that yes, a horrendous event took place and three persons died; yes, there was a murder; but no, the murderer is not Wilbert Coffin; and yes, the trial was badly handled.
That is how I would summarize the situation. And that is where we find ourselves 50 years later: there is evidence that unfortunately cannot be used again. Furthermore, it would be difficult to hold a new trial since almost all the actors in the events are dead.
I know that for the people in the area who still believe in justice, and there are many of us, it is important that the House of Commons, here in Ottawa, support the initiative that has been taken so that the process can run its course. However, it might be necessary to go faster. I fear further delays.
I want to believe that the person who is currently working on this matter at the Department of Justice is doing it professionally and certainly very rigorously. At the same time, however, I want to be sure that there is no room for any unreasonable delay. As I said earlier, and I will repeat it, every day that passes is one day less, one day when evidence may disappear.
Earlier, the question was asked whether there had recently been any new events. That is a dangerous question. What it speaks to is what is new, what is not new, what would justify this thing or that thing. I seriously think that on the face of it, of what has happened and what has been written to date, and the facts that we know, we have no choice but to review this case, not just for Wilbert Coffin and for the family and the people of the Gaspé whom I represent, but at the same time, very simply, for the justice system.
It was not so long ago, after Christmas, that I was sitting with the family in a church. We were just beside the cemetery where Wilbert Coffin was laid to rest. The family members and I went to visit Wilbert Coffin's grave.
(1620)
We might say this is heating up somewhat, because what I felt from the community and the family is the crucial need to always believe that the truth will always win out and justice will be done. The words must not be spoken in vain, just like that.
I do think that there have in fact been mistakes made and horrible things done in the history of the world. But there came a time when we were able to remedy them, when we were able to make sure that justice prevailed. We have come to that time. We have almost reached that point. Given these circumstances, I urge all members, my colleagues, to give their strong, perhaps unanimous support for the motion before us today. Eventually, there will be a vote on this motion to ensure that we are able to more forward on the matter, so that justice can be done and the truth can win out at last.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and I now would like to ask him a question and remind him that I clearly indicated—I believe—that we are already engaged in the process to restore justice and that our minister was actively working on this before the motion was tabled, which was not done by the previous government, nor by my colleague on the opposition benches.
First, our minister is gathering material on this case. The material is quite extensive and a lot of time is required for classifying the documents. Second, we have to understand that the minister is not a replacement for the justice system, but that he is involved in a review process that includes various stages: preliminary hearing, investigation, report, notice to the minister and then a ruling that will be made by the minister. It is clear that our minister became involved in this process because its purpose is to rebuild trust.
In my colleague's opinion, will being involved in this process and seeing it through rebuild the trust of Quebeckers in their legal institutions?
(1625)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that trust is earned. Trust is not based on any single action or event; it is based on a history of actions and events. I can see that this situation will force the minister to make a decision sooner or later. It seems to me that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was expressing a point of view similar to the current government's. Nevertheless, I feel we must seek to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to ensure that justice is done and that truth triumphs. That is all.
People are smart enough to understand when someone is saying one thing and doing another, or the other way around, and people are old enough and informed enough to know who they can trust. I myself trust the family that came to my office one day, a family I have met with several times since then. Their message is that they still believe in justice.
That is why they are doing what they are doing now. Imagine their situation. They go to the mall day after day, asking people to sign a petition about one of their ancestors who was hanged and telling everyone that they are ready to accept their support. You do not see that kind of courage often. They are opening themselves up to the public, sharing their deepest and most important thoughts.
What Marie and Jim are doing is very difficult for them. They kept quiet about it for quite a while, but it takes courage to do this kind of thing, to stand and take up the fight again. They are doing this after 30, 40, 50 years.
Hats off to these people for doing what they are doing. I still have faith in truth, in justice, but what happens next will determine whether that faith is well placed.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not from Gaspé, but near there. When this colossal mistake was made, I was a student in Quebec City. I knew students from Lac Saint-Jean and Quebec City. The Matapedia valley was part of Gaspé, although it is no longer considered to be today. People felt terrible when the court handed down its verdict and when the hanging took place. This feeling lasted for many years.
My colleague gave a very good presentation and has done a huge amount of work on this case. I have a great deal of admiration for him and for the family, which has demanded justice for Mr. Coffin. This event was a major factor in the government's decision to abolish the death penalty, because there was a feeling that a terrible miscarriage of justice had occurred.
I would like to ask my colleague—even though he is a little younger than I am—whether this is still true and whether the Coffin affair weighed heavily in the government's decision to do away with the death penalty.
(1630)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The answer is yes, without a doubt.
Mr. Coffin was executed on February 10, 1956. Today is February 5, and Saturday, February 10, will mark 51 years since he was hanged. When a judicial error is made—and the expression does not begin to describe the seriousness of the consequences—it is always possible to correct that error when the person was not killed. In this case, he was killed; he was hanged. A week later, someone else confessed to murdering the three American hunters, but it was too late. Mr. Coffin was already dead.
The events of 1956 weighed heavily in the balance. Fortunately, there were noises in the press at the time, but unfortunately, the political context was not very receptive. It is important to remember who was in power in Quebec at the time; that, too, was part of the history of this case. Wilbert Coffin's hanging weighed heavily in the balance. The government decided that it no longer wanted to find itself in situations where it wondered whether an error had been made and, more importantly, whether it could be corrected.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am moved when I hear the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine ask that Mr. Coffin's name be cleared and that justice be done in this case. In Quebec, the Coffin case is etched in our collective memory. I too was not born when these events took place, but I did hear about them.
A motion was adopted in committee by a number of members representing the various parties. I heard the Conservative member speak to this issue today. I suppose there were other government members sitting on that committee. Yet, we are hearing little from the government side on this issue today. I wonder if the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine could tell us what he expects from government members, so that some pressure can be exerted to ensure that justice is done in this case.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
I wish to inform the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine that he has 10 seconds left to reply.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I want very quick and unanimous action on this issue. It is as simple as that. Everyone must cooperate, so that truth and justice will prevail.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saint John, Ports and Harbours.
(1635)
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to better understand and give the Chair the opportunity to make its point on this. I was under the impression that, at the end of my speech, we would give a yes or a no, and that the question would be put to the House to decide the outcome of the debate. Otherwise, I have a hard time figuring out what is going on.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
This is precisely what we are about to do, but I just want to make sure that no other member wants to address this issue.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow.
* * *
Please let your feedback be known in posting your comments on this blog.
PART II
Mr. Joe Comartin:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his comments.
I think the Conservative government will tell us that the minister will receive a report from his officials and that our comments must not influence him or something like that. However, the government might also say that it wants things to happen fast and that enough time has passed. The government might say that this is not the best way to go about this review and that we could do it some other way. In that case, it might say that it is up to the government to decide whether to continue with the review or to replace it with another that will move faster and have a broader mandate.
This is why I suggest we support this motion today.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, it is with some humility that I rise today to ask—
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Is the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse rising to ask a question?
(1600)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
We are in the period for questions and comments.
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has the floor.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as you see, we are still getting used to parliamentary procedures.
It is with some humility that I rise today to speak of an event that took place February 10, 1956. It is a tragic event that also sowed the seeds for an apparent injustice.
I want to state in this House, and in particular to my colleague, as a representative of the Conservative members from Quebec, that we are concerned about this matter. We have listened to the debate with great attention.
Of course, a great deal has been written in Quebec about the Coffin affair, but more important, it sowed the seeds for an injustice. Whether it happens today or took place in the past, injustice is unacceptable in a democratic society such as ours. Where this occurs, we must rise above partisan considerations to ensure that the State assumes it full responsibilities and that justice is seen to be done.
This motion has been presented at a time when our government has clearly demonstrated its desire to restore public confidence in our legal and judicial institutions. In that light, the minister will take note of the motion and, if that is the will of the House of Commons, will act in a timely manner and within his powers. Under the law, for the minister to initiate such a procedure, there must be new information or significant information that was not necessarily brought to the attention of the court and that raises a reasonable doubt, namely, that an improper judgment may have been rendered.
The issue before us today is really to ensure that justice has been done. Naturally, that is what our government intends to do.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to address some questions to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.
First, I understand that he is not necessarily familiar with this case, and I can understand that. That is one thing; however, he must be very careful what he says.
He appears to be saying that we should leave this matter with the government, and that they will make a very good decision on this matter. I would like to believe him, but that is not what we are discussing today. It is not a matter of whether or not the government will make a good decision.
There is a process of analysis that calls for an official to review this file and, after doing so, to submit one or more recommendations to the minister, who will make a decision. At that point, one may or may not criticize the minister’s decision.
We are saying today that this debate seeks to ensure that the minister’s decision or the review takes place quickly. We do not want to intervene in the judicial or administrative procedures involved in analysis of this case. But we do want to ensure that the minister does not delay in rendering a decision on this matter, given the controversial and historic nature of this event that took place more than 50 years ago. That is why I said every day that we wait is a day lost that could mean the loss of possible evidence.
I do not know if my colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse has been made aware of the latest news, but some people were talking to the media and they said their father was the killer of the American hunters. Several books have been written on this subject, including one by Alton Price and two books by Senator Jacques Hébert. They, too, are part of this story.
I invite the member for Lévis—Bellechasse to make a commitment but of a different kind.
(1605)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. Members will certainly understand that I cannot necessarily speak for the minister, who must look closely at all the implications of the motion before us. However, I believe there is no problem in recognizing the historic reality of this event which, as I mentioned earlier, goes beyond any partisan considerations.
Of course, we now have the will as well as the process. I can assure my colleague opposite that the political will is there to ensure that justice is finally done. Unfortunately, in this case, these events happened over 50 years ago. In a way, I think it is important to take all the necessary steps to ensure that people have confidence in our justice system.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I do not want this to become a dialogue, but I do want to have a clear understanding of what the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was saying in his remarks.
Did I understand correctly? Does he intend to vote in favour of this motion?
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor for my speech? I heard that we were resuming debate. Therefore I am rising on debate.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
If you rise now, it will close the debate.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that no other member wishes to speak? Is that correct?
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
That is correct.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to—
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
You are the last speaker and you have 20 minutes for your speech.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will make the best of that time.
First, I am honoured and very proud to address this issue today, for a number of reasons.
I was born in the Gaspé Peninsula, and I was only a few years old when these events occurred. Therefore, I do not actually remember those events, but I do remember my parents and people in my community talking about them. I remember that people from the Gaspé region expressed their views about this issue on a number of occasions. I also remember that, at one point in our history, that event took place and several books were written about what really happened. Titles such as I accuse the assassins of Coffin and To Build a Noose are telling enough to give an idea of what really happened.
More recently, I do remember a family, Wilbert Coffin's family, coming to my office, in February of last year. I was a bit familiar with the case, because I had had the opportunity to discuss it with Cynthia Patterson a few times.
Today, I am taking part in the possible rehabilitation of Wilbert Coffin, long after an event which, in my opinion and in the opinion of my community, of people in the region and of Wilbert Coffin's family, was very much an injustice done to that individual. In this sense, I feel very proud and honoured. When I met family members for the first time, I met people who were bitter towards the justice system. However, I saw in the eyes of Marie Stewart, Wilbert Coffin's sister, and in the eyes of Jim, Wilbert Coffin's son, that they still had a bit of confidence left in that system. They feel it is not too late to rehabilitate Wilbert Coffin's name.
That is how I felt, and I think it is important that I be able to express that feeling now. In such instances, you feel like there is a big burden on your shoulders, but at the same time you realize that you are part of a wonderful family, that of the Bloc Québécois. I imagine that the same is true in the other political families. We know that we can rely on colleagues to give us a hand. The first person who lent me a hand was the hon. member for Hochelaga, our justice critic. When I knocked on his door to inquire about his interest and intentions, he immediately got on board and, in March, we met with the Coffin family together. We looked into the case with a very open mind, given the need to consider every possible way of ensuring that justice is done, purely and simply.
When the hon. member for Hochelaga agreed to meet the family, this made us, namely the family members and myself, feel much greater solidarity with the cause of justice.
I am well aware of the fact that, before us, many have looked into the Coffin affair to try to have justice done. I can think, for example, of Alton Price, who wrote To Build a Noose, and of Jacques Hébert, who wrote two books and took a public stand on this issue.
(1610)
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to them because there were people before us who tried to ensure that justice was done. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
It is never too late, though, to do what is right. There is good reason, as well, to do it now in light of all that has happened recently, particularly when we heard Mr. Cabot’s daughter say publicly that “the man who killed the American hunters was my father”. That says a lot. It is not just anyone saying anything. It is a daughter saying that her own father was the killer. That is the situation we face today. We should pay special tribute to Ms. Micheline Cabot, who spoke out so that justice could be done. She showed a lot of courage.
Other people have also worked on this case, such as family members. I am thinking in particular of the four series of petitions that I submitted, and soon I will be submitting a fifth. People all across Quebec signed them, but especially those in the Gaspé region. With the petition I received today from the hands of Wilbert Coffin’s very own sister, Marie Coffin, 1317 names have been added to the nearly 2000 we already had. In all there are nearly 4000 names. That is very significant in a region like ours because the total possible number of signatures is not huge. We do not live in the middle of a big centre or a city like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, where there are millions of people. In our region, only a few thousand names are possible. Nearly 4000 people have already signed the petition and simply requested that this matter be reviewed in order to clear Mr. Coffin’s name.
All these messages are focused on one objective, that justice be done. This requires a number of procedures. That is why the debate today is intended at most to present the case in its full context—a context in which a mistake was made that can now be set right, at least to some extent, a situation in which there is a family, the Coffin family, that is still living today with these terrible memories of something that no one would wish on his worst enemy, that is, to see someone headed for the gallows and executed for a crime he did not commit. That is the situation in which this family finds itself. That is how the members of this family feel. That is why these people have to be able to count on us and on Parliament to ensure that justice is done. As I said earlier, Jim and Marie still have some sparkle in their eyes. They both say they still have confidence in the justice system. It did them a great wrong, but they still have confidence in it. That is the message I am getting from these people that I wanted to convey to the House today.
When the time comes to vote on this motion, I hope the vote will be unanimous. We will be able to vote freely according to our conscience. The idea here today is not to fix everything, but to rectify a historical injustice. We cannot change the past.
(1615)
I was reading a book a few moments ago. I have already read many books on the history of Gaspésie that explore the Coffin affair. Obviously, this file is very important locally, within Gaspésie, but also nationally, thanks to media coverage. Of course, the case has received extensive media coverage in Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. It was also talked about in Quebec City, but is even being talked about throughout Canada. This is part of our history, and at the same time, concerns the last person executed in Canada. The death penalty was eliminated afterwards, because we realized, rightly, that that was going too far. I do not think we will ever return to such a time.
It is very interesting to note the support that is coming in from all over. I know that Mary, Jim and the other individuals currently involved in this struggle can count on me and the Bloc Québécois, but I hope they can also count on the other parties. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party, the government, has not spoken out as a party. I cannot understand this. I dare say, it is making a mistake by not speaking out at this time, and is behaving irresponsibly. However, the government still has time to voice an opinion and to assume its responsibility.
I would like to know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): You still have eight and a half minutes.
Mr. Raynald Blais: That is what I thought but I also thought that you wanted me to conclude.
That will allow me to express again the opinion of the people from the area who remember that story. In short, their impression is that yes, a horrendous event took place and three persons died; yes, there was a murder; but no, the murderer is not Wilbert Coffin; and yes, the trial was badly handled.
That is how I would summarize the situation. And that is where we find ourselves 50 years later: there is evidence that unfortunately cannot be used again. Furthermore, it would be difficult to hold a new trial since almost all the actors in the events are dead.
I know that for the people in the area who still believe in justice, and there are many of us, it is important that the House of Commons, here in Ottawa, support the initiative that has been taken so that the process can run its course. However, it might be necessary to go faster. I fear further delays.
I want to believe that the person who is currently working on this matter at the Department of Justice is doing it professionally and certainly very rigorously. At the same time, however, I want to be sure that there is no room for any unreasonable delay. As I said earlier, and I will repeat it, every day that passes is one day less, one day when evidence may disappear.
Earlier, the question was asked whether there had recently been any new events. That is a dangerous question. What it speaks to is what is new, what is not new, what would justify this thing or that thing. I seriously think that on the face of it, of what has happened and what has been written to date, and the facts that we know, we have no choice but to review this case, not just for Wilbert Coffin and for the family and the people of the Gaspé whom I represent, but at the same time, very simply, for the justice system.
It was not so long ago, after Christmas, that I was sitting with the family in a church. We were just beside the cemetery where Wilbert Coffin was laid to rest. The family members and I went to visit Wilbert Coffin's grave.
(1620)
We might say this is heating up somewhat, because what I felt from the community and the family is the crucial need to always believe that the truth will always win out and justice will be done. The words must not be spoken in vain, just like that.
I do think that there have in fact been mistakes made and horrible things done in the history of the world. But there came a time when we were able to remedy them, when we were able to make sure that justice prevailed. We have come to that time. We have almost reached that point. Given these circumstances, I urge all members, my colleagues, to give their strong, perhaps unanimous support for the motion before us today. Eventually, there will be a vote on this motion to ensure that we are able to more forward on the matter, so that justice can be done and the truth can win out at last.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and I now would like to ask him a question and remind him that I clearly indicated—I believe—that we are already engaged in the process to restore justice and that our minister was actively working on this before the motion was tabled, which was not done by the previous government, nor by my colleague on the opposition benches.
First, our minister is gathering material on this case. The material is quite extensive and a lot of time is required for classifying the documents. Second, we have to understand that the minister is not a replacement for the justice system, but that he is involved in a review process that includes various stages: preliminary hearing, investigation, report, notice to the minister and then a ruling that will be made by the minister. It is clear that our minister became involved in this process because its purpose is to rebuild trust.
In my colleague's opinion, will being involved in this process and seeing it through rebuild the trust of Quebeckers in their legal institutions?
(1625)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that trust is earned. Trust is not based on any single action or event; it is based on a history of actions and events. I can see that this situation will force the minister to make a decision sooner or later. It seems to me that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was expressing a point of view similar to the current government's. Nevertheless, I feel we must seek to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to ensure that justice is done and that truth triumphs. That is all.
People are smart enough to understand when someone is saying one thing and doing another, or the other way around, and people are old enough and informed enough to know who they can trust. I myself trust the family that came to my office one day, a family I have met with several times since then. Their message is that they still believe in justice.
That is why they are doing what they are doing now. Imagine their situation. They go to the mall day after day, asking people to sign a petition about one of their ancestors who was hanged and telling everyone that they are ready to accept their support. You do not see that kind of courage often. They are opening themselves up to the public, sharing their deepest and most important thoughts.
What Marie and Jim are doing is very difficult for them. They kept quiet about it for quite a while, but it takes courage to do this kind of thing, to stand and take up the fight again. They are doing this after 30, 40, 50 years.
Hats off to these people for doing what they are doing. I still have faith in truth, in justice, but what happens next will determine whether that faith is well placed.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not from Gaspé, but near there. When this colossal mistake was made, I was a student in Quebec City. I knew students from Lac Saint-Jean and Quebec City. The Matapedia valley was part of Gaspé, although it is no longer considered to be today. People felt terrible when the court handed down its verdict and when the hanging took place. This feeling lasted for many years.
My colleague gave a very good presentation and has done a huge amount of work on this case. I have a great deal of admiration for him and for the family, which has demanded justice for Mr. Coffin. This event was a major factor in the government's decision to abolish the death penalty, because there was a feeling that a terrible miscarriage of justice had occurred.
I would like to ask my colleague—even though he is a little younger than I am—whether this is still true and whether the Coffin affair weighed heavily in the government's decision to do away with the death penalty.
(1630)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The answer is yes, without a doubt.
Mr. Coffin was executed on February 10, 1956. Today is February 5, and Saturday, February 10, will mark 51 years since he was hanged. When a judicial error is made—and the expression does not begin to describe the seriousness of the consequences—it is always possible to correct that error when the person was not killed. In this case, he was killed; he was hanged. A week later, someone else confessed to murdering the three American hunters, but it was too late. Mr. Coffin was already dead.
The events of 1956 weighed heavily in the balance. Fortunately, there were noises in the press at the time, but unfortunately, the political context was not very receptive. It is important to remember who was in power in Quebec at the time; that, too, was part of the history of this case. Wilbert Coffin's hanging weighed heavily in the balance. The government decided that it no longer wanted to find itself in situations where it wondered whether an error had been made and, more importantly, whether it could be corrected.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am moved when I hear the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine ask that Mr. Coffin's name be cleared and that justice be done in this case. In Quebec, the Coffin case is etched in our collective memory. I too was not born when these events took place, but I did hear about them.
A motion was adopted in committee by a number of members representing the various parties. I heard the Conservative member speak to this issue today. I suppose there were other government members sitting on that committee. Yet, we are hearing little from the government side on this issue today. I wonder if the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine could tell us what he expects from government members, so that some pressure can be exerted to ensure that justice is done in this case.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
I wish to inform the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine that he has 10 seconds left to reply.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I want very quick and unanimous action on this issue. It is as simple as that. Everyone must cooperate, so that truth and justice will prevail.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saint John, Ports and Harbours.
(1635)
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Raynald Blais:
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to better understand and give the Chair the opportunity to make its point on this. I was under the impression that, at the end of my speech, we would give a yes or a no, and that the question would be put to the House to decide the outcome of the debate. Otherwise, I have a hard time figuring out what is going on.
[Table of Contents]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):
This is precisely what we are about to do, but I just want to make sure that no other member wants to address this issue.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow.
* * *
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire