Debates of Feb. 5th, 2007

Justice and Human Rights

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

Is the hon. member for Wild Rose rising on a point of order?

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that what I am trying to get at is this constant saying that the Conservative government now is not doing anything about something that, it almost seems, had just come to light. It has been going on for a long time. Where were the other governments? Why was something not done?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Wild Rose is rising on a point of debate, not a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the member for Hochelaga for introducing this motion at the Standing Committee on Justice, which has resulted in the report before us this afternoon.

I want to say to the member for Hochelaga, because I have heard this before and I say this as a practising lawyer who followed the Coffin case from the time I was very young, that much like the Truscott case in Ontario, which was seven or eight years after the Coffin case, I believe Canadians right across the country were concerned about the adequacy of our criminal justice system in the Truscott case and similarly in the Coffin case.

There is no question that a great number of issues have been raised. It is important to point out that, as recently as September of last year, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted took up the Coffin case. In addition, in the last few months the federal government has finally recognized the need to investigate this, and the Criminal Conviction Review Group is now investigating it.

In terms of some of the specifics, much like other members, I cannot help but juxtapose the Truscott case with the Coffin case. If the Coffin case had gone through the criminal justice system in the early to mid-1960s, I cannot help but wonder if his conviction would have been overturned or, at the very least, if the order for the death penalty imposed at the time of the trial would have been dispensed with and he would have been given a sentence of life in prison, like Mr. Truscott received, therefore preserving his life.

I want to make a significant point: for the first time, a case of wrongful conviction is being considered after the person is deceased. I think it is important that this occur given the discrepancies. There are all sorts of very clear and strong allegations of overt partisan political interference in the province of Quebec at that time, by as high an office as that of the premier and certainly of the attorney general. The conduct of the prosecutor in the case is certainly suspect, from what we are getting from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. Also suspect is the role the defence counsel played and how he came to be involved in the trial.

We can look back at it and say that if we had not had the death penalty Mr. Coffin would probably still be alive, and perhaps his wrongful conviction, if in fact that is what ultimately comes to the fore, would have been dealt with a long time ago. Similarly, when we look at some of the facts of what occurred in the defence in that period of time, if we had had a legal aid plan at that time perhaps the results would have been significantly different.

There is no question that as a Parliament we could simply sit back and say that we are going to allow the Criminal Conviction Review Group to do its work. The problem is that the parameters within which this group works and its mandate under the code are much more restrictive than the mandate the government could assign to a judicial inquiry.

For instance, the issue of how much interference there was at the political level could be raised much more extensively, if in fact it was there and it had some significant consequence in the way this trial was handled. The review group has a much more limited mandate in terms of investigating that. I could point out several more issues that could be more properly dealt with under the Inquiries Act than would be dealt with by the review group.

What can happen is that the review group can recommend that this matter be dealt with in the form of an inquiry by our courts. What I am really suggesting, and I believe this is to some degree the theory behind the member for Hochelaga moving this motion in committee and doing so now before the House in the form of this concurrence motion, is that we try to speed up the process so that the inquiry could be appointed now by the government. It could get under way immediately, have a broader mandate to get at the truth, and hopefully overturn what most of us believe is an injustice.

There is obviously no way of adequately compensating Mr. Coffin post-death. The very minimum we can do is rehabilitate his reputation and in effect say to the family, his son and his wife, that yes, the criminal justice system in Canada failed them, we are acknowledging that, we are apologizing for that, and we are rehabilitating the reputation of their husband and father.

It seems to me that adopting this motion would be a way for the House to say that we want this process speeded up and this is a better way of doing it. I would urge all members of the House to support the motion.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my NDP colleague who just spoke.

I would like to point out that there is currently a public servant at the Department of Justice studying this matter and eventually he will make his recommendations to the minister. We do not know exactly when this will take place nor what he will recommend. However, we have a pretty good idea. We also do not know what the minister's decision will be.

I believe it is important to note that, during the debate, the government did not venture an opinion or convey any message. To date, I have not heard from the Conservatives and I may not hear from them. I hope this will not happen because it would be irresponsible to remain silent about such a process at this time.

The government is now being asked, by means of the House of Commons, to act quickly. That means to speed things up. It does not make sense to wait any longer. These are people who, in time, will no longer be with us. We are also dealing with the memories of the family, of the people from the Gaspé who firmly believe in the innocence of Wilbert Coffin.

The speech by my NDP colleague has reassured me as to his party's position. I believe the government would be acting responsibly by stating its position soon on this matter.

Do they want to speed up the process, yes or no? Do they want to shed light on the matter, yes or no? This is what we are debating today. I am disappointed that I am not hearing from those in government. I would not want what we are doing to be considered partisan politics. That is not at all the case. We are partisans of justice and nothing else. It would be quite natural and normal to hear from the Conservative members on this matter, just as we heard from the Liberal members and the NDP member, who spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some humility that I rise today to ask—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse rising to ask a question?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We are in the period for questions and comments.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has the floor.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

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.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

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.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor for my speech? I heard that we were resuming debate. Therefore I am rising on debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

If you rise now, it will close the debate.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that no other member wishes to speak? Is that correct?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

That is correct.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You are the last speaker and you have 20 minutes for your speech.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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.

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.

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, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You still have eight and a half minutes.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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.

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.