Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1996

Canada Elections Act

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for his intervention. I am sure there will be a great deal more intervention from both sides of the House when we get to third reading.

As I said in my brief remarks in committee while in camera, this is a partial solution. Considering the number of time zones we have across this great land of ours from east to west, I believe it is the best accommodation that can be made to reflect the sensitivities members had particularly to those Canadians living in Alberta and British Columbia.

Obviously we all realize that when it is 7 p.m. in British Columbia it is 10 p.m. in Quebec and Ontario. It would be quite a test to draft something that would be perfect for all the regions of Canada. At the same time I believe that is the art of the impossible.

I submit that this proposal is equitable and fair to the electorate throughout the country. Yes, the amendment would provide for 12 consecutive voting hours in all time zones across the country by adding one hour of voting time in the morning. Bill C-63 provides for staggered voting hours across the country to respond largely to concerns of voters in the west, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, that their votes do not carry the same weight as those of other Canadians. Each and every vote of each and every Canadian counts equally.

The bill as reported by the committee proposed that the polls be open for 11 consecutive hours as is currently the case in each time zone but that the hours for voting be staggered as follows: The polls in Newfoundland and Atlantic zones would be open from 9 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time region would be open from 10 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Polls in the mountain zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Finally, the polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.

The bill proposes a reduction by one hour, from four to three hours, in the number of consecutive hours that every employer must provide to employees in order to vote. This was proposed to address the concerns of employers in western Canada. A 7 p.m. closing time in the Pacific zone would mean that employers would need to let their employees leave work at 3 p.m. under the current four hour rule. The bill's proposed reduction to three consecutive hours means that employers would allow their employees to leave work at 4 p.m. which is the current situation. Recall that currently the polls close in B.C. at 8 p.m.; with the four hour consecutive rule employees may currently leave work at 4 p.m.

Under these staggered voting hours, results from the eastern, central and mountain time zones would be available at the same time. Results from the Pacific zone would be available one-half hour later.

The proposed amendment now before us would modify the staggered voting hour proposal of Bill C-63 by adding one additional hour of voting in the morning in all time zones across the country. This means that the polls in the Newfoundland Atlantic zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central time zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to8.30 p.m. The polls in the mountain time zone would be open from 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. The polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Allowing the polls to remain open for 12 consecutive hours would help to compensate voters in the Pacific time zone who are losing one hour in voting time in the evening. With this proposed new amendment, the polls in this time zone would open at 7 a.m. allowing most workers one extra hour to vote in the morning before starting work.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things, which I am sure the government or anybody else would find in trying to create legislation that is going to work to solve a problem is to first discuss whether there is a problem of perception or a problem of a reality.

I happen to be a bit of a hybrid in that I come from British Columbia but I happen to be in the Alberta time zone so I speak with some authority to this issue. In fact, if we look at the reality, the reality is that with Internet, telephone communications and satellite services, those in western Canada who choose to avail themselves of information relative to voting patterns in Ontario, Atlantic Canada or Quebec can do so.

I may be admitting to some kind of a crime here, but in 1993, one hour after the polls closed in Ontario I made a telephone call from British Columbia to Ontario to find out what was going on. That does happen and it is a reality. However, the question has to be: How many people in western Canada actually do that?

There are only a selected number of us who choose to become candidates and a few more who choose to actually support the political parties. For the most part, there is no problem. As a matter of fact, according to the reports that I read in the news media on the most recent U.S. presidential election, the amount of information that was accessed on the Internet by people in the western U.S. about what was going on in the eastern U.S. was

minuscule. In other words, in actual fact this has no real basis of reality.

There is a problem of perception. The problem is that people will turn on their televisions in the Pacific time zone and the votes will have been in the process of having been counted for four and a half hours in Newfoundland and three hours in central Canada. The perception is that the election is over.

However, I agree with the Liberal whip that every Canadian's vote counts and is equal. I suggest to this House that in actual fact it does not make a bit of difference. There may be a perception in British Columbia on the part of some people, and a little disappointment, particularly as it happened in the 1993 election. We were expecting that Reform was going to break through in Ontario, as we will in this coming election, but we were expecting that in the 1993 election. Naturally there was a lot of disappointment for the people in western Canada that the people of Ontario had not quite woken up to the fact of what Reform was about. The fact is that it did not make a bit of difference.

What I do not understand is legislation that deals with perception only and in dealing with perception completely upsets the apple cart. Everyone in this House will be fully aware of the fact that between five o'clock and eight o'clock on election day, if they have anything approximating a team working for them, their people will have the information of whether their supporters have been out and have supported them. That not being the case is when the telephoning happens. It is part of the election process.

What we have done in British Columbia is to take one full hour out of the normal election process. Does this mean that the people of British Columbia will not get out and vote? I would suggest it could. It certainly will change the difference between the way in which the election is conducted by the respective parties and their organizations and the supporters of the candidates in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to the way in which it is conducted in Alberta and British Columbia. They will be missing the hour between seven o'clock and eight o'clock when they could be getting their voters out.

I submit to the House that this legislation deals only with perception and is problematic. It creates problems. Instead of dealing with the real problem, it creates a real problem.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, while there are continuing discussions on a number of issues, out of an abundance of caution I wish to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the minister say that negotiations are ongoing and then he finished up by saying that we are unable to reach an agreement. In fact, the deputy House leader for the government and myself were sitting right here talking about this particular issue. I wonder, when we are talking, how the minister can stand up and say that no agreement has been reached.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time is now 1.30 p.m. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.

Louis Riel worked tirelessly for Metis people, as well as other residents of the territory, so that they could take their rightful place in Canadian society and exercise their rights and freedoms within the Dominion of Canada.

An historical perspective is always useful to have when examining a matter such as we have before us today in the House.

The Metis people of Rupert's Land and the North-West Territory took steps, through democratic structures and procedures, to maintain order and to protect the interests of all the members of the community at the Red River.

In 1870, under the leadership of Louis Riel, the Metis of the Red River adopted a list of rights. Based on the list of rights, Louis Riel negotiated the terms for admission of Rupert's Land and the North-West Territory into the Dominion of Canada. A delegation of three was sent by the provisional government to Ottawa to present the terms to the Canadian government. This action put an abrupt

end to some publicly expressed desires, south of our border, to have American settlers expand northward into Rupert's Land.

These terms of admission, or union, form part of the Manitoba Act. This act provided for certain guarantees for Metis people, who were then in the majority, including schooling and religious rights, as well as recognition of the French and English languages.

The rights of other citizens were also clearly set out. This was Riel's vision of a united country, with each citizen participating on an equal basis.

After negotiating the entry of Manitoba into Confederation, Louis Riel was elected three times by acclamation to the House of Commons. All hon. members know that acclamation is a rare event in the political process, an action accorded only to those who command the greatest respect from all quarters. Such was the stature of Louis Riel in Manitoba at that time.

From the late 1870s to the mid-1880s the territory west of Manitoba was undergoing significant change. Indians were not the only occupants of this region. Both English speaking and French speaking Metis and settlers of many nationalities had moved west of Manitoba. These people banded together to advance their requests to government for the maintenance of their rights.

The Metis asked Louis Riel to assist in negotiating with the government. This took place at a time when Metis people and others felt the government had not responded to the plight of the people in the North-West Territory. This had led to extreme tensions.

The Metis people of the territory led by Louis Riel, decided to take action to secure their interests. Several military expeditions were dispatched to the west. Sadly, this led to a conflict in which lives were lost. Louis Riel paid with his life for his leadership in a movement which sought protection for the aspirations and interests of Metis people. This loss was devastating to Riel's family and has been a heavy burden for all Metis people.

The Metis people have since honoured Louis Riel's memory and have continued his purposes. The Constitution Act of 1992 recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the Metis. Governments have honoured Louis Riel in numerous ways. Commemorative stamps have been issued to honour Louis Riel.

The government, through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, funded the publication of the collective writings of Louis Riel. This was published by the University of Alberta Press in 1985 to commemorate the anniversary of the North-West rebellion. Copies of this scholarly work have been deposited in all major Canadian libraries.

On March 10, 1992, the House of Commons passed a special resolution honouring Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and recognizing his contribution to the development of western Canada.

The government takes very seriously its obligation to honour one of its sons for his many contributions. On May 16, 1996 a new statue of Louis Riel was unveiled in Winnipeg. The Metis people see this depiction of Riel as a statesman as a proper and fitting tribute. Funded by the government, the statue is situated on the grounds of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

Riel's statue overlooks the Assiniboia River just west of its confluence with the Red River, two of the major transportation routes of the settlement in that era of our country's history.

At the unveiling the Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Winnipeg South Centre told the gathering that Riel was a father of Confederation for all Canadians. Lieutenant-Governor Yvon Dumont, a Metis, said the unveiling of the statue establishes Riel's status as Manitoba's founder. Mr. Dumont said: "He is a hero to all Canadians. Today we hold our heads higher".

The government will continue to work closely with Metis leaders and the family of Louis Riel to find meaningful and appropriate ways to celebrate Riel's contributions to Confederation. The government will continue the dialogue begun with the Metis leadership in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution concerning his conviction. We will also continue our discussions with the leadership on this and other matters through the existing bilateral process with the Metis National Council.

I cannot accept the premise on which this bill was put forward. When Bill C-297 was tabled, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata asserted that Riel was hanged "because he was Metis, because he was francophone and because he stood up for a distinct society". Statements such as these do no justice to Louis Riel. They are incompatible with his purposes.

Riel was an eloquent, articulate defender of Metis rights as well as those of all members of the community, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, anglophone or francophone. Louis Riel believed in Metis having equal rights and participation within Confederation. Metis formed a substantial part of the population then and he championed the rights of minority groups.

Louis Riel would likely be saddened today by the divisive approach being taken by the Bloc in this debate.

I would like to remind the House of the resolution adopted in 1992 by the House, which recognized the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to the

development of Confederation. It further agreed to support the true attainment both in principle and practice of the constitutional rights of the Metis people.

Whatever we do to find a way to address this important matter, we should do so in a manner which is acceptable to the family of Louis Riel and to Metis.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt appreciate that I readily support the bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata. For the benefit of those just joining us, I would like to make it quite clear that, as the official opposition in this House, we sincerely believe that we are putting before Parliament a bill to redress an injustice.

We must not overlook the fact that there was a time in Parliament's history when, within these walls, shame, intolerance and injustice prevailed. Our purpose in recalling such injustice is certainly not to revive old fratricidal conflicts. We will recall that Louis Riel was democratically elected three times by the people of Provencher and given the mandate to do what we as Canadian parliamentarians are doing today, namely representing our communities.

There is a paradox in accusing of high treason a man who, on many occasions in this House, was recognized as an upstanding founder of Manitoba. Louis Riel was recognized as a leader in his own right in the defence of human rights. He advocated principles that still reverberate in Parliament.

There is a paradox in, on the one hand, recognizing that Riel was one of the founders of Manitoba, that he fought for his peers, for the recognition of the right to self-government and self-determination of his community, the Métis community, and on the other hand, regarding him as a traitor. This paradox could become a source of unbearable shame if ever we, as parliamentarians, were so ill-advised as to not support the bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

What is this bill all about? It calls for the revocation of Louis Riel's conviction. We are not trying to rewrite history here. Later in the debate, as we have all along, we will review the very specific milestones of Louis Riel's public life.

I think it would be unfair and irresponsible not to recognize that the decision to sentence Louis Riel to death for high treason was historically unfounded. Without rewriting history, but having lucidly considered the facts, we certainly have a duty and responsibility to redress the injustice that unfairly cost Louis Riel his life.

What are the tools at our disposal to effect redress? This is what the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, who has a sense of history, is proposing. She is asking this Parliament-let me quote the bill directly:

Whereas Louis David Riel, member of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Provencher from 1873 to 1874, was convicted on August 1, 1885 of high treason and sentenced to death, and was hanged on November 16, 1885 at Regina, North West Territories;

Whereas, notwithstanding his conviction, Louis David Riel has become a symbol and a hero to successive generations of Canadians who have, through their governments, honoured and commemorated him in specific projects and actions;

It is being asked-and this is the thrust of the bill, this is where we will see if, in the House, we are able to act upon words-out of respect for history, since:

-and whereas it is consistent with this recognition that the conviction of Louis David Riel be now revoked-

that this conviction now be revoked.

You will tell me that history cannot be rewritten, and this is a very great truth.

I repeat that, if history cannot be rewritten, we still have the responsibility, as parliamentarians, to set the record straight, considering that it was in this very place that Louis David Riel, whose election was sanctioned by a democratic process, as is the case for all of us here, was not allowed to fulfill his mandate.

But worse than that, what happened? There was a practice Louis Riel, first in 1869-70, as the head of his community located close to the Red River, witnessed, without being consulted, powerless but not impassive, whereby British settlers, people who were not part of his community, occupied the land. Louis Riel was forced to stand by, fully aware and committed, while an act of dispoilment was being committed. I am deliberately using the word "despoilment", because as you probably remember, the central government of the day, with the support of the British authorities, sent surveyors to readjust the maps so as to redistribute the lands to people other than the Metis.

Under these circumstances, prompted by their strong desire for democracy, Louis Riel and his peers formed a temporary government which had to quell a rebellion, a government which, having to deal with the rebellion stirred up by British settlers in Fort Garry, decided to execute Thomas Scott.

Because a community was being despoiled, a man had to die, as was the custom at the time. The Metis were despoiled.

What happened then? Instead of opening up the discussions, of trying to understand the claims which the Metis had often ex-

plained to Parliament, violence was used, because the government felt it could quell the rebellion with the help of its armed forces.

The fundamental problem was that of a community which was being despoiled on an individual basis, because the very existence of the Metis community was being ignored.

Time has gone by and Louis Riel has remained the very significant figure he has always been for the Metis. Ontario and its most aggressive Anglo Protestants demanded Louis Riel's head and they got it.

In a second uprising, this time in the far west, at the end of the railway line, there was a second attempt at removing a community and despoiling the Metis again in what was to become Saskatchewan.

Again in 1865, Louis Riel was part of the struggle and stood up for his people. At that time, we-I say "we", but there is nothing personal to it-the Parliament of Canada was party to a verdict of execution against Louis Riel. What is becoming increasingly clear from the writings of historians of the day, and very few of us could deny these facts, is that Louis Riel was the victim of injustice and that the ideal conditions, the conditions of elementary justice, were not all there for his trial.

I could remind you that Louis Riel was tried in Regina although he should have been in Winnipeg. He was judged in Regina by six English- speaking jurors, but if his trial had been held in Winnipeg, as his peers were requesting at the time, the jury would have been made up of an equal number of English- and French-speaking jurors.

Also, Louis Riel was tried by a judge liable to dismissal.

He was not tried by a Superior Court judge, who could have acted independently from the federal government because he was not liable to dismissal.

Moreover, Louis Riel and his family were not allowed the benefit of the expertise of his attending physician. The government preferred the testimony of a Hamilton doctor, who examined Riel for half an hour, before coming up with the subservient and false medical opinion we are all aware of.

Still on the sad saga of Riel, the jury that condemned him recommended clemency, but the judge nevertheless sentenced him to death. Louis Riel's story is a story of injustice. It is the story of a subservient Parliament and, thus, of a community covered in shame.

You know all the publicity Riel's case had in Quebec. It is certainly not by accident that, after the hanging of Louis Riel, in November 1885, the Premier of Quebec, Honoré Mercier, the fist premier, as you will remember, who asked for an interprovincial conference, the first nationalist premier, said spontaneously in front of a huge crowd of 50,000 people: "Louis Riel, our brother, died unjustly".

And in the opinion of several historians, Louis Riel's death was the first step in what was to become a major national unity crisis.

Allow me, in concluding, to quote a distant cousin of Louis Riel and former member of the other House, who said this: "We have to admit that this sentence alienated the Province of Quebec. This was a major crisis, maybe as serious as the one we living through today. It is hardly surprising that, each year between 1885 and 1900, some 100,000 French Canadians left Quebec to emigrate to the United States. They did not go to western Canada. There is no need to look for the causes underlying this phenomenon. People in Quebec felt they were not welcome in that part of the country, as was evidenced by events of the day, such as the death of Riel and the fact that the use of French was abolished in Manitoba in 1890". These are historical facts.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, the main purpose of which is to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel for high treason. More specifically, it is a revocation of the guilty verdict and not simply a posthumous pardon.

Everybody in this House knows that Canadian history, especially the development of the western part of the country and the relations in the first years of existence of our country, cannot be understood without a good understanding of the events surrounding the work of Louis Riel and the Métis people in Manitoba and in western Canada in general.

This subject is studied in all history courses in our country, even in high school. Louis Riel's place in Canadian history is truly essential.

Louis Riel played a key role in Canadian history in the 19th century. Indeed, he was an important contributor to Confederation. Riel was educated in theology and the law. He was fluent in English, French, Greek and Latin. He was an eloquent and polished statesman who directed the negotiations with the Government of Canada on the entry of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories into the Dominion of Canada.

Louis Riel was a man who worked tirelessly for the Métis people and indeed others who settled in the areas of what have now become the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Under the leadership of Louis Riel the Métis of the Red River adopted a list of rights in 1870.

That list of rights served as a base for negotiations between Louis Riel and the Canadian government for the entry of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories in the Dominion of Canada.

That list essentially constituted the terms of the union and was included in the Manitoba Act, 1870.

After that province joined Confederation, voters in the riding of Provencher, Manitoba, elected Louis Riel as their member of the House of Commons three times by acclamation. However, the circumstances did not allow Riel to occupy his seat.

Not only did Riel help Manitoba become the fifth province to join the Dominion of Canada, he also helped people in western Manitoba to present their claims to the government.

When the Métis people asked Riel to help them defend their civil rights in the Northwest Territories, in an area that is now part of the province of Saskatchewan, he answered their call.

We now recognize that the government of the day was slow in responding to the requests of the residents of the region, even if these requests were reasonable requests. What were these requests? Let me review the principal requests for the record.

The residents wanted appropriate surveys of their settlements made. They asked for improved transportation so they could move products and materials to and from the markets. They wanted other usual services, those services normally provided by governments to its citizens and nothing more.

The Métis, both the English speaking and French speaking Métis, along with settlers of many nationalities sent numerous petitions and delegations to Ottawa to ask the government to carry out its responsibilities. After what these residents viewed as many years of neglect and without recourse against the encroachment of others, they asked Riel to help them. The combination of frustrated citizens and the appearance of a military expedition led to an unfortunate turn of events and the loss of life.

These unfortunate events must not make us forget that Louis Riel devoted his life to the interests of the Métis people. He understood their concerns. He had a vision of the proper place of Métis people and other westerners within Confederation.

The government intends to seek to recognize his positive achievements. Over the years governments have recognized Louis Riel's contribution to this country in a number of ways.

Hon. members may remember that the government has issued postage stamps commemorating Riel. To honour Riel's memory cultural performances have been funded over the years, including the very successful Batoche days, an event that has taken place for the past 25 years. On March 10, 1992 the House of Commons recognized by special resolution the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as founder of Manitoba and as a significant contributor to the building of Confederation.

On May 16, 1996 this government made possible through the provision of significant funding the unveiling of a new statue to Louis Riel on the grounds of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. This statue depicts Riel as the statesman he was.

Many things have already been done and many more positive things can be done. We must encourage the government to keep the lines of communication open with Metis leaders and the family of Louis Riel to ensure they agree with any proposed measures.

There is already a process for discussions with the Metis leadership. This includes a bilateral process with the Metis National Council and the tripartite self-government negotiations with the Metis organizations at the provincial level. Discussions with the Metis leadership should continue through the existing processes.

There is a recognition among all Canadians of the proper place of Louis Riel in Canadian history. There is a recognition among Canadians that if Louis Riel were alive today and the circumstances he was involved in were debated in light of today's Canadian values, most likely events would have taken a much different turn. Let us hope we have learned through the course of history how to deal with the circumstances which brought forth Louis Riel's expression of concern on behalf of his people.

It is always very difficult for us as legislators to attempt to judge the past based on today's determination of justice and values. We hope that as history progresses we will improve and enlarge the scope of understanding through which we pursue matters of justice such as those which led to Mr. Riel's execution in 19th century Canada.

Other examples have been debated in this House where members of Parliament with the very best intentions have wanted to rewrite history to right the wrongs which legislators today accept were wrong. For many reasons these wrongs have not been brought forward in those ways. And we hope to learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them.

It is interesting that this debate is taking place on the day after the release of the report of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. One of the commission's strong messages is that the treatment of aboriginal peoples has been fundamentally flawed throughout the long history, from the beginning when Europeans came and settled in this country.

The authors of that report are asking Canadians to lay a new foundation for the relationship. But we cannot reverse what has taken place in 300 years of history. We have to learn from that history and if necessary start again. That is my message in this debate.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from the Bloc, I would like to speak to Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.

A few days ago, it was the 111th anniversary of the hanging of Louis Riel. That crucial and much debated event of Canadian history still haunts this Chamber. It is said that history is "the science that studies things that do not repeat themselves", but it is also said that knowing history is essential to understanding the present. Furthermore, the lessons of history help to better anticipate the future. Louis Riel's actions have an exceptional historical significance in the development of western Canada, not only in his struggles on behalf of minority rights and of the establishment of real provinces in the West, but also in his campaigns for the strengthening of our border with United States.

History cannot be rewritten. However, we can redress the wrongs done to that great man, condemned to death in a mockery of justice. We have the duty to defend and rehabilitate Louis Riel's memory. His cause was our cause. He wanted all communities to be treated fairly and be allowed to develop freely.

Who was Louis Riel? Let us go back to history to make a portrait of the man. Louis Riel was born in St. Boniface in 1844; his parents were Metis. After his studies, he began his career in Sir George-Étienne Cartier's law firm in Montreal.

Shortly thereafter, he returned to Red River to take up the important role of leader of the Métis in their fight against the expansionist powers of the government in Ottawa. Louis Riel devoted himself not just to the cause of defending the rights of the Métis, but also to protecting the rights of all the inhabitants of Red River at a time when the traditional equilibrium of the colony was threatened by outside factors.

Indeed, in 1867, the British North America Act had created the new Dominion of Canada, whose leaders were looking to extend their rule from one coast to the other.

Manitoba and part of the Northwest Territories, which then belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company, were run by governors appointed by that company. At that time, the government in Ottawa was concerned about the expansionist leanings of certain Americans and decided to negotiate directly with the Hudson's Bay Company to buy Rupert's Land-and this is where the problem lies-completely ignoring the concerns of the local population, who, at the time, felt like so much cattle for sale.

There were then almost 12,000 people in the Red River area; the Métis, mostly French speaking and Catholic, and long time settlers, mostly English speaking, of English or Scottish descent. Buffalo hunters and farmers, these groups that were different in every respect, language, religion, and livelihood, had still learned how to co-exist. The territorial ambitions of Ottawa, and the attitude of certain new colonists from the East would destroy this fragile balance.

It rapidly became apparent that the strategy of the hardliners within the Canadian government was to provoke civil war in the western colony and to lay the blame for it on the Metis, so as to reduce their influence and destroy their political power. Emerging victorious from the battle of 1869, the emissaries of Louis Riel negotiated with John Alexander Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier the terms of a settlement, which became the Manitoba Act in 1870. This conferred the status of province on the new territory, and hence Riel was considered the father of Manitoba.

The Metis approved this settlement in June 1870, but Louis Riel was under accusation of acts of rebellion and unable to obtain amnesty. He was forced to leave the province he had helped to establish. Louis Riel did, however, succeed in getting elected to the federal Parliament clandestinely in October 1873. Out of fear of being arrested and charged, subsequent to the Scott affair, he did not report to the House of Commons.

Re-elected in the 1874 general election, he was expelled from the House that same year on a motion from an Anglo-Protestant member. Re-elected for a third time in the byelection required by his own expulsion, he was again expelled from the House. Prime Minister Mackenzie then obtained the approval of the House to grant Riel amnesty, conditional upon a five-year exile.

Seven years later, in 1882, the Metis of the North-West, fearing loss of their lands to the Canadian Pacific, again rebelled and called upon Louis Riel.

As we know, the rebellion ended in the defeat of Metis troops at Batoche in 1885. Riel was taken prisoner and transferred shortly afterwards to prison in Regina.

But the worst was yet to come. There are many indications that the trial of Louis Riel took place in circumstances that were unfavourable from every point of view. His trial was to be held in Winnipeg, in a bilingual court before an independent judge of the Superior Court, and probably half of the jury members would be francophones.

Prime Minister Macdonald's cabinet ordered the trial to be held in Regina, where the court would function in English only, where the territorial magistrate could be removed at the discretion of the

federal government and where it was unlikely any of the jury members would be French-speaking.

A number of historians agree that Macdonald was intent on making Riel take the blame for everything and having him convicted and executed as soon as possible.

The trial of Riel was held during the summer of 1885. He was accused of high treason under an English law dating back to 1352, according to which the penalty for treason was death. However, we know that Louis Riel could have been tried under a Canadian law passed in 1868, which provided that the penalty for attacking the security of the state was life imprisonment. On August 1, the jury declared Riel guilty and recommended clemency. The judge sentenced him to death.

Another important aspect of this question is that the federal cabinet could recommend that the Governor General use his royal prerogative to pardon Riel. However, Ontario wanted Riel's head, while French Canadians in Quebec and Manitoba demanded that he be pardoned.

The government, faced with these two waves of protests, calculated the number of seats it would lose on either side in the next election. The pardon was denied, and Louis Riel was hanged on November 16, 1885 in Regina.

This is not about rewriting history, as I said earlier. Louis Riel was convicted and sentenced to death for treason in 1885. However, more and more people, including historians and politicians, believe today that the cause Riel defended at the time, the rights of the Metis, Native people and the francophones of Western Canada, was a just cause.

In 1992, this House acknowledged the unique and historic role Louis Riel played in founding Manitoba. And yet, in legal terms, Riel is still a traitor. This is the paradox that the bill of my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata aims to eliminate.

In the past 15 years or so, no fewer than seven bills have been tabled by various parties in the House of Commons in order to restore Louis Riel to his rightful place.

In 1985, on the 100th anniversary of his hanging, the member for Hamilton, today the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Deputy Prime Minister, sought a posthumous pardon for Riel. Our colleague concluded her impassioned statement by saying, and I quote: "Louis Riel, who died unnecessarily, deserves to be exonerated by the government and recognized as a victim of wrongdoing".

Bill C-297, which calls for the conviction of Louis Riel to be overturned, is in the end an act of restoration. It is this House's recognition of an injustice to a citizen who paid with his life, at the age of 41, the cost of his devotion to defending human rights.

He was also a pioneer at that point. Unfair and unjust treatment warrants exemplary reparation. This is what the bill before us calls for today, and it speaks to all members of this House.

Neither statues nor statements in the House will suffice; what is required is legislation overturning the conviction. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the member's bill.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1885, Louis David Riel was hanged.

One hundred and eleven years ago today, on November 22, 1885, in reaction to this hanging, 40,000 to 50,000 people gathered at the Champ de Mars, in Montreal, and heard Premier Honoré Mercier's famous cry: "Riel, our brother, is dead, the victim of his dedication to the cause of the Metis".

Quebecers have not forgotten Louis Riel. This is why I rise today to support Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

In order to understand why it is important for the Metis people and for all the francophones in the country to get Louis Riel's name cleared, one must know the history of the development of western Canada, which is closely intertwined with the life of Louis Riel.

Louis Riel was born in St. Boniface, on October 22, 1844. He was the son of Louis Riel, whose mother-Riel's grandmother-was a Metis, and of Julie de Lagimonière, the daughter of the first white woman born in the North-West.

Eldest of 11 children, he was gifted, and thus he was sent to the Petit Séminaire de Montréal, where he studied from 1858 to 1865. In 1866, he went back to the Red River area and settled in St. Boniface in July 1868.

Back home, he noticed a strong antipathy between newly arrived English Protestant settlers, who wanted to control the colony with the help of the central government, and the long time residents, that is the Metis and francophones, but also Scots and anglophones born in the West.

The discontent was aggravated when the government sent some survey crews to divide the land, and the surveyors kept the better lots for themselves or their friends, declaring arrogantly that the legitimate owners would soon have to give up their farms to the English settlers coming from the East.

Riel embraced the cause of his compatriots, protested against the actions of the surveyors and sent demands to the federal Parliament. When the Hudson's Bay Company stopped governing the

country, in December 1869, Louis Riel formed a provisional government, with English-speaking and French-speaking members, which was later approved by the cabinet in Ottawa.

That provisional government took prisoner a group of English Canadians who were challenging its authority but soon released them. Some of them, including the young Ontario Anglo-Protestant Thomas Scott, took up arms again and were arrested once again. The Metis convened a court-martial and Scott was sentenced to death and executed. Ontario never forgave Louis Riel for that action.

The conflict with the central government was solved thanks to the mediation of Bishop Alexandre Taché, and the government promised to declare full amnesty and to meet all the demands of the Metis.

Strong action on the part of Riel and the Metis, their control over the territory and their list of rights forced the federal government of the day to grant provincial status to part of this territory, namely the district of Assiniboine. It would later become the Province of Manitoba, thus foiling federal plans to turn western provinces into mere territories under the control of governors appointed by Ottawa. Western Canada owes a great deal to Louis Riel; it should acknowledge and be grateful for his contribution.

Promises of amnesty were broken. Louis Riel was elected three times to the House of Commons, in 1873, 1874 and 1875, but was never able to sit as a member because a price had been put on his head. In February 1875 he went into exile for five years in exchange for amnesty.

Pursued by enemies who despise him and fearing for his life, Riel stayed twice in Quebec hospitals, before returning to western Canada and the United States.

In 1880, the Metis started sending numerous petitions to the federal government, which was slow in delivering their property titles. The Metis feared losing their lands to Canadian Pacific.

In July 1884, Metis, anglophones and Indians from Saskatchewan asked Riel to help them protect their rights, as he had done so well for the people of Manitoba in 1869. Faced with the Conservative government's apathetic attitude, the Metis decided to defend their economic, social and political rights. They created a small republic and launched a peaceful protest to that end.

On December 16, 1884, representatives of the Saskatchewan population sent the federal government a 25-clause petition outlining their claims and grievances.

They sought permission to send delegates to Ottawa to submit a list of rights and possibly reach an agreement on the eventual inclusion of their territory in the Canadian Confederation, as a new province.

At the time, Saskatchewan had a population of 60,000. By comparison, Manitoba only had a population of 12,000 when it joined Confederation. The central government's reaction to the reasonable demands made by the Saskatchewan people was to send in the army to subdue them and give their lands to the railway company and to settlers from the east.

Since the federal government was showing no interest in their cause, the Metis and the Indians rebelled, winning a few battles in the process. However, the troops sent by Ottawa defeated Riel at Batoche and regained control over the territory. Riel gave himself up.

On November 16, 1885, after a trial tainted with irregularities, and despite the jury's call for clemency and the representations of Quebecers, Louis David Riel, the Métis hero, was hanged. He was the only leader sentenced to death, which shows that his execution was mainly a political issue.

Louis Riel has become a symbol, the symbol of a linguistic and cultural minority struggling to survive and to get equal civil and political rights. These rights have long been ignored, and to this day, Métis and francophones have to fight to have their constitutional rights recognized in their daily life.

Whether our Reform colleagues like it or not, Louis Riel was also a worthy figure in the fight of pioneers who cherished freedom, close contact with nature, and the vastness of this country to prevent the federal government from interfering with their way of life in the name of civilization.

Let me quote from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography , published by the University of Toronto Press. I ask my colleagues in the Reform Party to listen carefully to this quotation about Louis Riel:

"Today he is seen as a founder of those movements which have protested central Canadian political and economic powers".

Riel could therefore be considered one of the first to condemn western alienation. Are the members from the western provinces willing to pay tribute to Louis Riel by voting in favour of this bill?

It must be clearly understood that we are not trying to rewrite history with this bill. Louis Riel was the leader of a rebellion, he was captured, summarily convicted and executed, those are the facts. For many anglophones living at that time, Riel was a traitor, an enemy; for francophones and the Metis, he was a hero.

The question today is how we, members of the House, consider him now. Many of the rights for which he fought have been recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The House of Commons has unanimously recognized his unique historical role as founder of Manitoba and his contribution to Confedera-

tion. A Canadian stamp has been issued in his honour, and statues have been erected to him.

The Liberals, when they sat on the opposition benches, asked for Louis Riel's rehabilitation. For example, in 1985, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Conservative government to exonerate Riel and went even further by saying: "Louis Riel, who died unnecessarily, deserves to be exonerated by the government and recognized as a victim of wrongdoing".

In May 1996, the then foreign affairs minister stated: "As long as I am in office, I will do my utmost to ensure that the Metis have the right to take part fully in this country". It is now time for the Liberals, who have been in office for three years, to make good on their promise and to take action in favour of Louis Riel.

Clearing the name of Louis Riel would harm no one, since all those involved at the time have long been dead. But this would be a symbolic gesture of opening up to the Metis and French communities to show them that they are welcome in this country and that they are respected.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the few minutes remaining. "Je me souviens". Yes, I remember my language, my culture, and all those who died for me. After all, these are the words that appear on all licence plates in Quebec. Remembering is important.

Lately, someone asked me why we bothered to have a debate in the House on this subject. That person wondered if revoking the conviction of Louis David Riel would change anything in the world. I say that we must acknowledge that something terrible happened: a political execution or an attempt to alter history.

Mr. Riel was, I would say, victim of wrongdoing. I think it is important to know where we have come from to know where we are going. We did not just spring up one day. It is important to understand the origins of our nations, what happened in the past.

What I find particularly fascinating is to see so many of my colleagues opposite who stated, while in opposition, that they were ready to do anything to ensure the revocation of Louis Riel's condemnation. I cannot wait for the results of this vote. What will happen?

It may not be a great moment in the history of our country, but it will be a small moment in our history. For me, it is heart-warming to be able to speak today on such an important issue. I am particularly proud, because two years ago, I had the opportunity to follow an English immersion program in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, just a few kilometres from Batoche where these events occurred.

We are standing up for a hero who fought for democracy as a whole, who gave his life for what he considered a fair and good cause.

Such was the cause and the involvement of a man who put his mark on Canada's very foundation, that is, the Canadian Constitution. This was the cause of a man who was persecuted because he was proud to be a Metis, a Catholic and a French-speaking Canadian, three things that were then very badly perceived in Ottawa.

When we see how the government is treating its minorities today, we tend to believe that things have not really changed. We sometimes wonder. We often blame the young for not being interested in the history of their country and for not knowing anything about this episode of their history, which makes so many Quebecers and Canadians proud.

In order to really understand how important this bill is, we should go back in time to get to know who Louis David Riel was. In so doing we will refresh the memories of those who may have chosen to forget what happened.

Riel was born in 1844 in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba. He was a Métis, which means his parents were of different races.

After his studies at the Petit Séminaire in Montreal, he returned to Manitoba in 1866 and saw the hostility between English Protestant settlers who had recently settled there and wanted to control the area, and the francophone Métis who were Catholics.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time has expired.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will resume debate next time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday.

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)