Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate and I want to congratulate the hon. member who just spoke on this important initiative.
I take pleasure in addressing this House on a matter very dear to the hearts of the Metis people of this country and one that is of significant importance to all Canadians. Clearly it is a matter of great interest to this government as well. I applaud what appears to be at first glance a laudable objective.
-to recognize the injustices suffered by Louis Riel and to correct the situation.
However, a number of questions were raised. Can we actually do what is being proposed here today? Can the legislative branch of the government overlook a judicial decision? This is a constitutional issue. Is this bill supported by a majority of Metis people in Canada?
The hon. member's initiative is laudable but, given the Bloc's vision, some wonder whether it is a ploy to make the agenda of the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois more palatable. Is the hon. member a pawn for the separatists forces? I am not saying this to be mean. However, we are well aware that the Bloc's vision is different from that of the other political parties. This issue must be raised here in this House, otherwise we would be denying reality.
Parliament is being asked today to do something which it may or may not be able to do, to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel. It can do so, but is it constitutionally solid? Will it stand? Could it be contested? Those are questions we need to raise.
I have conducted considerable research in this area. I have discussed Louis Riel and the constitutional implications of what is being proposed with the finest experts in the land. There is a great deal of debate. It seems, according to certain authorities, that a legislative revocation of the conviction may in fact be invalid. It may be unconstitutional.
It would appear, according to those same sources, that it would be highly unlikely that a judicial overturning would stand up in the courts or would stand up to that kind of challenge. It might be improper since it may be a breach of the constitutional divide between the legislature and the judiciary.
Hon. members know that some eight private members' bills have been tabled in the House since 1978 on the matter of Louis Riel. A considerable amount of parliamentarians' energy continues to be expended trying to find ways to heal the unfortunate events of the past while also trying to find appropriate ways to honour Louis Riel's contribution to the building of Confederation.
I have been among those who have been proud to speak out on this matter. For example, in 1995 while debating this issue, I suggested that we form an all-party committee with an MP from each political party to determine whether this bill was feasible or whether there was a more appropriate option. I was not able to find unanimity to proceed in that way. I wanted to discuss what might be the best course of action for which we could find unanimous consent.
I have worked with certain authorities such as the Library of Parliament. I have held discussions with people of St. Boniface, my riding, where Louis Riel is buried, with ministers of justice and the solicitor general on this issue, including our senior minister for western Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I also had the opportunity to speak on this matter in 1992 when I supported the resolution:
"That this House recognize the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation; and that this House support by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and practice, of the constitutional rights of the Metis people".
I supported this motion. I even requested that we take a further step.
I said that, in a spirit of justice, we should go a step further and "recognize Louis Riel not only as the founder of Manitoba but as a Father of Confederation".
As you can see, I strongly support the idea of clearing Louis Riel, and I support the principle underlying the bill. However, as I said earlier, I am somewhat concerned about where it could lead us.
I find it ironical that a political party has once again tabled a private member's bill, allegedly to settle the issue of Louis Riel's conviction, but which essentially seeks to take advantage of the circumstances surrounding this case to possibly build a wall between English and French Canadians, something that would be unfortunate.
I am not the only one concerned. In a letter to the Prime Minister regarding this bill, the president of the Metis National Council, Gérald Morin, said, and I quote:
First of all, there is a reference. I have it here and I want to make sure I read it correctly.
He says that he has been encouraged and pleased by the productive dialogue that has been initiated and promoted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources covering a wide range of Metis concerns, including the exoneration of Louis Riel and the appropriate recognition of Riel as a Father of Confederation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that he wishes this dialogue be about correcting the wrongs of the past with respect to the Metis people. At the unveiling of the Louis Riel statue in Winnipeg on May 12, 1996 he added: "Promises were made to the Metis that were not kept. As long as I am in a position of power I will try to make sure the Metis have full and equal participation in this country".
The letter from the Metis National Council, written by Gerald Morin, continues: "We have grave concerns about the potential negative impact of the bill. While the goal of the bill appears positive, we are concerned about its potential use as a tool by those who are intent on breaking up Canada. To in any way allow this to occur would be a travesty to the vision of Louis Riel, which was for a strong and united Canada and a homeland where the rights of all people, including French language rights, were assured."
Members will know that Louis Riel negotiated the terms of admission of Manitoba into Confederation, the Manitoba Act, which provided for certain guarantees for Metis people, including schooling and religious rights as well as recognition of French and English language rights. The rights of other citizens were also clearly set out.
Such was Louis Riel's vision of a united country in which all would participate equally.
Louis Riel was then elected three times by acclamation to the House of Commons.
Riel was an eloquent speaker. He was a staunch protector of the rights of the Metis and, in fact, of all members of the community, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, anglophones and francophones.
Louis Riel's fate has long been a heavy burden for his family and for all Metis people. We must find a solution and a way to recognize his importance and the injustices that he faced.
Is this the way to proceed? I do not know. We need a solution that would be supported by all parties and by the Metis people, for this is ultimately, I believe, what we should all want, the rehabilitation of Louis Riel. What does it mean? It means recognizing the fact that he would not have been convicted of treason had he received a trial according to the standards of fairness normally upheld. Clearly we could say that. We could come to some agreement and the Metis people of Canada would agree that is so.
His role in the history of Canada is of such importance that he deserves to be called a Father of Confederation. This is what "clearing" means. This is what Metis people and Riel's descendants want. Surely, we have the authority here, as a political structure, to do precisely what I just suggested, perhaps in more eloquent terms, and to rehabilitate Mr. Riel, the Father of Manitoba, to be sure, but also a Father of Confederation, of Canada.