THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 24, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:33 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
[English]
My name is Brent Cotter. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I want to welcome all of you to today’s session. I’d like begin by inviting my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left with the deputy chair, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Good morning. Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Senator Pate: My name is Kim Pate. Welcome. I live in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Wells: Christopher Wells, Alberta.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
The Chair: We are meeting to continue our study of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).
For our first panel, we are greatly honoured to welcome two special witnesses by video conference: The Right Honourable Kim Campbell, former prime minister of Canada, former minister of justice and attorney general; and the Honourable David Lametti, former minister of justice and attorney general. Both of you — certainly Mr. Lametti — have been regular visitors at this table. I welcome you both.
In light of the fact that Mr. Lametti has a commitment and needs to leave by 12:15, Ms. Campbell, I think you have agreed that it would be acceptable for Mr. Lametti to speak first. I will invite each of you to deliver remarks of approximately seven minutes, and that will be followed by questions and a dialogue with senators at the table. Mr. Lametti, the floor is yours.
Hon. David Lametti, P.C., Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair — Dean Cotter — if I may. It’s a great pleasure to be with you today.
[Translation]
It’s like being among friends. I’m honoured to be invited. I’m also honoured to be sharing the screen today with the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. She was the first woman prime minister of Canada and the only one to date. She was also the attorney general of Canada and justice minister when David Milgaard was released. I want to applaud her decision. I know that she’ll have a few comments on the topic. It wasn’t an easy decision. I applaud both her intelligence and her political courage. I would like to thank the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Once again, I’m honoured to be sharing the screen with her today.
[English]
My friends, I am here today to discuss a bill that is very important to me because I promised David Milgaard in 2019, when I met him for the first and last time in the presence of James Lockyer, that I would get this bill done. I hope that you will join me in doing everything you can, honourable senators, to do just that.
I repeated that promise to his sister Susan the day that we tabled this legislation, and I certainly also repeated the promise to Ron Dalton when I met him in the Maritimes during the process of consulting about this bill.
Senators, every single ex post facto review or commission on a wrongfully convicted case has recommended that we create this kind of commission. The current process that we have functions, but it functions too slowly. It is too costly, especially to individuals who have to try to move the system along. If they are lucky enough to have the help of a pro bono lawyer or an Innocence Project across Canada, they can move it along, but it results in very few cases ever actually reaching the Criminal Conviction Review Group, or CCRG, in the Ministry of Justice, and certainly fewer cases actually reaching the eyes of the Minister of Justice.
The cases that do get there appear to be too uniform. They tend to be high-profile homicide cases. There are other wrongful convictions that happen in Canada, which hurt victims, the accused and their families and cause the justice system a great deal of reputational and financial damage.
It’s a system that is too costly, and we can fix it.
What we have in front of us in this bill is a very good model. It is a model where the proof of concept already exists. We have effectively taken a great deal from the model in England, which has been working now for 25 years, and working very well. We have taken effectively a similar structure and a similar legal standard. Since 1997, when that commission began, they have heard over 500 cases.
In our case, we have had 30 cases in the same period of time. Even granting for a difference in population, it still simply is the case that there are many wrongful convictions in Canada that happen. Mistakes happen. We’re not ascribing blame here; we’re trying to fix the system where we can. But even taking that into account, it is still too low a number. There are certainly other cases of wrongful convictions in Canada that go uncorrected.
When I first became Minister of Justice in January 2019, the first file on my desk was that of Glen Assoun. It convinced me — because he had waited so long, and the process had taken so long — that something had to be done.
I asked Justices Harry LaForme and Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré to give us the architecture. We already had enough commissions and studies to tell us we needed this commission. We didn’t need that set of justifications. What we needed was a set of ideas and possibilities for the structure of the commission. I want to thank former Justices LaForme and Westmoreland‑Traoré for the work they did. They did extensive and exhaustive work. They talked to other commissions around the world that were functioning, and they gave us a number of ideas.
We have chosen a model from amongst those ideas that we believe works, that has worked in other countries. In our cognate jurisdictions Australia and New Zealand, it has just begun, but in England, Scotland and Wales, it has been going for a while, and going well. We think that this is a model that will help more people get access to justice by correcting wrongful convictions, working within the confines of the current justice system and the current appeal structure.
My fellow colleagues, former colleagues, this is a pivotal moment. There is political instability. It was difficult to get this bill here. We’re 25 to 30 years overdue. There are people in jail right now who would benefit from this commission. There is a transitional process in place for those already in the system.
Let me finish where I began, with David Milgaard. When David was freed, he could have become bitter, but he didn’t. He worked with James Lockyer, Ron Dalton and others to try to make more accessible the correction of wrongful convictions in Canada. He was a strong proponent of this type of commission.
We owe it to David, Glen Assoun, Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott and everyone else who has been wrongfully convicted in Canada — most recently, the three Indigenous persons in Winnipeg who were recently released. We owe it to them to do it as quickly as we possibly can. Everything is in place. Given the political instability that exists on the other side, in the House of Commons, I would suggest that we do it as quickly as possible, and we do it now.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Campbell, please proceed.
Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, P.C., Former Prime Minister of Canada, as an individual: Thank you. You don’t want to ask questions of Mr. Lametti while he is still here?
The Chair: I think we should hear from you. I might invite senators when they are posing questions that they pose them primarily at the outset for Mr. Lametti so we extract from him as much as we can before he has to leave. I would like you to deliver your opening remarks now, if you would.
Ms. Campbell: I’m happy to do that. I didn’t prepare formal remarks because I wanted to be able to respond to David’s opening comments, not to be repetitive.
When I dealt with the very high-profile David Milgaard case, one of the first things I did after quashing his conviction, based on an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada, was to ask lawyer James O’Reilly, now of the Federal Court of Canada, to review the section 690 process and make some recommendations because it was clearly unacceptable.
There are a couple of things I’d like to say. One, when I first got the Milgaard case, for example, I spent a whole weekend reviewing the files. It was very labour-intensive, and I spent a lot of time on it. For a minister of justice to deal with dozens of cases, hundreds of cases, it’s unrealistic. We need, as David has suggested, the kind of human resources, the person power, to be able to do justice to these cases.
Second, I want to say that these reviews are very difficult, and the irony is that if the circumstances that had led to David Milgaard’s conviction arose today, he would never even have been charged because the forensic evidence that later exculpated him would have excluded him as a suspect. But, in his case, the circumstantial evidence was quite extraordinary.
When I asked the Supreme Court of Canada to review the case in a way that I couldn’t — to make evidence public because I was not at liberty to do that — five judges spent three weeks hearing viva voce testimony. Even their report to me did not say they found a miscarriage of justice. Their opening comments were there was ample evidence to convict David Milgaard. They found no fault with the trial.
Their advice to me was that had the jury known that another offender named Larry Fisher was in the neighbourhood, it might have raised a reasonable doubt, and, given the amount of time that David Milgaard spent in jail, he probably should be released.
I say this because now we know because the DNA evidence showed that it wasn’t David Milgaard; it was Larry Fisher. But you say, “How could that happen?” We have to understand that circumstantial cases arise through all sorts of different cognitive biases.
When I created the Leadership College at the University of Alberta, I created a course designed to encourage students to understand that the way we think we think isn’t how we think. There is a huge body of research in social and cognitive psychology that helps us to understand why we often get things wrong. My friend Carol Tavris, a psychologist from Los Angeles, wrote a book with her colleague Elliot Aronson, called Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me), where she looks precisely at the errors that happen in law enforcement — police who are convinced they can tell when someone is telling the truth or not. Well, we know that the people who are best able to convince you they’re telling the truth are, in fact, psychopaths. There are the kinds of dynamics that went into the conviction of the Central Park Five and the resistance of those who had been part of that wrongful conviction to admit that they had, in fact, been wrong, even when DNA evidence exculpated them.
It’s important to understand that the work that this commission will do will be difficult and will require a range of skills, not simply good legal skills, but people who understand the dynamics that go into decision making and where juries and law enforcement can get things wrong.
It’s also important to understand that a blame game will not be helpful. In other words, the commission has to conduct itself in such a way that they dispassionately search for the truth, try to find errors where they have existed and identify dynamics, where possible, that have led to those errors — but without creating a hostile relationship with those around the country who are administering our justice to try to help people understand that good people can honestly make mistakes and that we are all subject to certain kinds of cognitive biases that enable us to get things wrong.
I mean, the Milgaard case was so important to me because after David Milgaard was finally exculpated, I was very happy for him. What happened was there were semen samples on the undergarments of the murder victim. Sadly, the largest of those samples, which might have sooner been amenable to DNA testing — there wasn’t DNA testing at the time of the actual trial — was sent by a lab at the request of the Milgaards for blood type testing. It came back that the perpetrator had type A blood. Well, as it happened, so did David Milgaard. Here you had a forensic exam that only provided support to the circumstantial case, not providing the difference.
It was tragic that there were a number of things that undermined the ability of David Milgaard to defend himself and later to create the case for his wrongful conviction. But I think it’s very important that the review for wrongful convictions insist that all forms of forensic testing that might be available be done. In many ways, that is often the only determinative way you can identify something. In some cases, there isn’t such evidence. I read sometimes in the United States that people who are asserting their innocence are denied the opportunity for biological evidence that exists in the exhibits of a trial to be tested for DNA to establish one way or the other whether they in fact were innocent or guilty.
This commission needs to be a group of people with legal and other kinds of training who will understand the complexity of criminal trials, the various ways in which things can go wrong, the fact that errors can be made and what the resources are to try to find certainty.
Today, if the circumstances that led to David Milgaard’s conviction were to arise, DNA testing would be done immediately. It was a number of years before the tiny samples were amenable to DNA testing because technology was developing. Today, he would be excluded as a suspect right away.
Not all cases lend themselves to that kind of certainty, but the importance of insisting that whatever forensic resources are available be deployed should be seen as the right of any charged person, any accused, to have access to all of those resources, independently of personal resources or the inclination of law enforcement.
I am delighted to see the establishment of this commission. When I was Minister of Justice, there were two things that Britain was doing that were very interesting. They took our lead in creating a public prosecution office because before they had not had that. I remember going and speaking to people there as they created their first director of public prosecutions. But the wrongful convictions commission, which came into force after I was out of office, had a lot of push from the famous case of the Guildford Four — the Irish Republican Army, or IRA, people whose story became the film In the Name of the Father — that terrible injustices were done.
It’s wonderful that we have not only the example of the structures that they have created in a very similar and congenial set of legal institutions but also the example of their functioning over the past couple of decades so that we can have a greater sense of confidence that what we’re creating can work.
My comment would be that we will never get it right 100%. I don’t think we can achieve perfection. But we can do the very best possible to make sure that wrongful convictions don’t stand and that we learn more and more about how such things can happen and try to prevent them before the processes unfold and learn as much as possible from the cases as we are finding justice for people who have been wrongfully convicted. I’ll stop there. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell. Not surprisingly, there are a significant number of colleagues who would like to engage in conversation with both of you. As a result, I’m going to ask that between question and answer, we limit ourselves to four minutes. If you can, pose your questions as succinctly as possible.
Senator Arnot: I have two questions, one for Mr. Lametti. Firstly, I want to say that I believe this set of amendments to the Criminal Code is the most important change made to the Criminal Code in the last few decades. I commend you for leading the initiative to address this very pressing need in the justice system.
Bill C-40 draws on best practices from the U.K., Scotland and Wales, principally, regarding exceptions to exhausting appeals. I want you to comment on your experience in advancing legal reforms and the requirement to exhaust those repeals. What lessons do you believe have been taken from other jurisdictions to improve the mechanism for dealing with these issues? That’s my question for Mr. Lametti.
Ms. Campbell, during your tenure as Minister of Justice, you spearheaded a number of reforms, particularly in sexual assault law to improve fairness to victims. How do you see these reforms in this particular wrongful convictions issue as building a legacy on balancing fairness?
Also Ms. Campbell, you have raised the issue of good people being appointed, commissioners bringing with them the principles of professionalism, integrity and neutrality. It’s a heavy responsibility. You have talked about it. It will be difficult. The work will not be easy. Do you have anything you want to say to amplify what you said about that? Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Campbell?
Ms. Campbell: Does Mr. Lametti wish to answer his question first?
Mr. Lametti: I’m happy to jump in. Thank you. We have taken best practices from other jurisdictions, but we also need to take the larger lessons, senator. Thank you, first of all, for shepherding this bill, thank you for the work, and thank you for the question.
The larger principle is flexibility. We need the commission to be able to be flexible, and we need the options to be able to be flexible as well. We were told by our British counterparts, “Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Make sure that this commission can work from the get-go.” We think we have done that by maintaining flexibility for the commission to approach issues and cases as it needs to. There is a great deal of working flexibility there. There is flexibility with respect to the commissioners. We have taken something from what Ms. Campbell has said in that we will have both lawyer and non‑lawyer members of the commission. That, too, is important.
With respect to appeals, we meant this to work within the existing appellate structure so that a person in the normal case will likely have to have appealed both to the Court of Appeal and to have at least started a process for the Supreme Court of Canada. There are some exceptions now, given an amendment that was made in the House of Commons committee, to allow for people to go to this commission exceptionally.
But for the general workings of the commission, it’s going to be working within the appellate structure, because we do have a good legal structure. We do have a good appellate structure. We do have a good legal system. We’re trying to improve it where we occasionally make mistakes, without upending what really does work well within the system.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Campbell?
Ms. Campbell: Senator Arnot, that’s a very profound and good question that you have asked, because when I was managing the section 690 as minister, obviously, the applications were for people who had to have exhausted their avenues of appeal. So it was the Royal Prerogative of Mercy that they would come to you to exercise.
One of the former justices of the Supreme Court of the United States — it might have been Justice Breyer, I can’t remember — said that when people come to the court seeking a declaration of a wrongful conviction, they come not with the presumption of innocence but with the presumption of guilt. In other words, if you have been convicted, if you have exhausted all your appeals, you no longer come with the same presumption. That’s a very interesting philosophical challenge.
I think the possibility of flexibility, particularly where overwhelming evidence — normally the appeals would be based on errors of law, so if there can be a clarification of the role of the commission on findings of fact that would overturn the conclusions of the jury or the fact-finder in the trial, that might be a part of it.
You have put your finger on something that will be quite an interesting challenge. It might also relate to the second point I wanted to make about building confidence and trust.
One of the problems — aside from the fact that the minister is a busy person who has a lot of things to do — is that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada wears two hats. I remember when Mrs. Milgaard ambushed me when I was giving a speech in Winnipeg. Honestly, I was criticized for deking away and not speaking to her. I was there speaking on a constitutional issue, and my section 690 lawyers weren’t with me. I honestly didn’t know if I was entitled to speak to her because the process was done through lawyers. I didn’t want in any way to compromise the process. I was quite befuddled. It wasn’t because I wasn’t concerned about her, but my view was, what does an applicant do who doesn’t have a mother? How do I demonstrate fairness to every person so that I will address everyone’s application with the same impartiality?
Brian Mulroney said, “Wow, that was a lawyer’s response, not a politician’s response.” I said, “Yeah, but I’m not a politician when I’m doing these. This is when I’m the Attorney General of Canada.” In Britain, of course, the attorney general and the justice minister are two different roles, and the attorney general is not in cabinet. One of the things that I find so attractive about this model of the commission is that it avoids any kind of suggestion that these deliberations and evaluations have any kind of political or partisan overtone.
The Milgaard case was very controversial. Just as there were people who wanted David Milgaard to be freed, there were some law-and-order, lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key kind of people who were convinced.
Incidentally, the circumstantial evidence was quite extraordinary. There are people who think that you’re a wimp if you overturn a conviction, but it shouldn’t be political. It’s not political. It never was political for me. I think to have a body which is independent of government in a sense and can look at things in a factual and legally principled and informed way, you will have the kind of public confidence you need — I’ll use this expression — to avoid putting the administration of justice in disrepute.
The reason I made the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada — and incidentally it went back to the Steven Truscott case. When I was a young woman, my lawyer father had a book by Isabel LeBourdais called The Trial of Steven Truscott, and I was just a young woman when I read it. At that time, Jean Chrétien was Minister of Justice, and he sent the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He asked them to review it as if they had granted an appeal — I think they turned down an appeal. So I thought, “What could I do?” I sent a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking for an opinion if after reviewing everything that was in front of me and more, they were of the view that there had likely been a miscarriage of justice. What that made possible was the airing in public of all the evidence in front of me, so it wasn’t a question of people wondering why Kim Campbell is not doing this or that. It wasn’t about me. It was about this very difficult case, and that provided that kind of opening.
If a commission has the capacity to have some public airing of evidence and the ability for people to see what is being considered — you have to figure out what the best extent of that is — then that helps create some confidence that nothing is being hidden and that assertions are being answered and responded to. There is a great deal of promise in this process.
The Chair: Thank you. At some point I may exercise the temerity to interrupt the former prime minister of Canada so that a number of our colleagues can have an opportunity to have a conversation with you.
Ms. Campbell: I apologize. I’m the master of the 30-minute sound bite.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. First of all, to Mr. Lametti, given the time constraints today, when you made your second-reading speech in June 2023, you stated this:
This is one of my major priorities as minister, and it is a priority for our government. It is also important to me personally. . . .
In recent years, I have worked hard to develop a new approach that will improve the process for people who claim to have been wrongfully convicted. I have been working a long time to establish an independent miscarriage of justice review commission, as did the two individuals for whom Bill C-40 is named —
— those being Joyce and David Milgaard —
— I sincerely wish they could see us today.
Given how you’ve spoken about Bill C-40, I feel confident in saying, Mr. Lametti, that you took a very hands-on approach in the drafting of this bill. You instructed the Department of Justice to draft Bill C-40 to require exhausting of appeals with fewer exceptions than currently exist, and you spoke in favour of that requirement in your second-reading speech. You stated unequivocally:
It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the judicial system, nor is it another level of appeal. Rather, it provides a post-appeal mechanism to review and investigate new information or evidence that was not previously considered by the courts.
Minister Virani, in his comments to the House Justice Committee, made a similar comment when he was asked if he was concerned about the opening of floodgates. He said, “You need to have exhausted your appeals . . . .”
Mr. Lametti, if the requirement to exhaust appeals was a safeguard against frivolous or baseless applications, why would the government remove it? That appeal you refer to, do you agree with that amendment introduced by your former colleagues, which now allows for an application to be filed without necessarily exhausting all appeal options? If you do agree with it, why did you not include that exception in the bill when you initially drafted it with such care?
Mr. Lametti: Thank you, Senator Batters. That’s a good question. Obviously, the initial bill was as you described it and as Minister Virani and I justified it. It was and is still meant to work in the existing appeals structure. The commission will only have the powers the minister currently has, which is to send matters back to a superior court or a Court of Appeal, depending on whether there are facts to be retried — in which case it would go back to the superior court — or whether there are legal issues to be tried. At that point you would consider sending it to a Court of Appeal.
I had become — I still am, I think — a pragmatic incrementalist, given my time in public life and given my time as Minister of Justice. The amendment process recognizes that there are other parliamentarians who would like to have a say in the structure of a bill, and I’ve always respected that, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. You’ll attest to that record yourself, given my dealings with you in the past and with the Senate in the past.
It is my understanding that even with the amendment the vast majority of cases will stay within the original framework; that is, the appeal process has to be exhausted before one can have access to the commission.
There was a safety valve put in through the amendment to say that in certain circumstances — again, I would have to see the workings of it — the burden would be on the person to justify the exceptionality of the circumstances. But again, it is my understanding that these are meant to be exceptional cases and that the vast majority of cases will still remain within the original structure that we had envisaged in the original bill.
Senator Batters: Given the significant historical perspective that you bring here, Ms. Campbell — I’m from Saskatchewan and, as I mentioned in my critic’s speech, the David Milgaard case has loomed large throughout my entire life. You briefly noted this in your prior answer, but for history’s sake, I wanted to give you an opportunity and a longer chance — maybe now or maybe later in this meeting — to tell us and Canadians more of the historical perspective of your recollection of the David Milgaard part of that story, especially given that there have been different recollections stated over the years, including from former Prime Minister Mulroney. I wanted to give you the opportunity to have your recollection noted on camera in this important context.
Ms. Campbell: I know he said it was his idea to go to the court — it wasn’t. It was my idea, and it came directly from my reading of Isabel LeBourdais’ book. That’s where I came up with the idea of sending a reference to the court.
It was one of the most difficult cases I had ever encountered, and the reason it made me so humble about my ability to know the truth was because it was a case with overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It was astonishing. For example, the day of the crime, David Milgaard is with his young friends, and he’s acting strangely, and he has lost his boots, and they go to visit one of his friends in Saskatoon. He disappears at some point. Later, the wallet of Gail Miller, the victim, is found discarded in that neighbourhood. That seems to be a circumstance that would add weight to the case against David Milgaard, but then you find out that the person who rented the basement suite in the house of the friend whom David Milgaard visits is Larry Fisher. So there were all of these things, and at that time there was no evidence that drew the police to Larry Fisher. His wife was suspicious of him. She thought he might have done something and that there was a knife missing from their house. When she goes to the police, they either show her the murder weapon or describe it, but she says, “No, no, that’s not what’s missing from our house.”
So the police have no reason to pursue this. It’s just a combination of things. As I say, the effort to get the blood type testing — David Milgaard has type A blood. It’s a rare type of blood, and I’m sure they thought if they got blood type testing, that might exculpate him because only 15% of people have type A blood, but, lo and behold, the perpetrator also had type A blood. So this forensic test added to the weight of the circumstantial evidence.
It was extraordinary. I have, over the years, thought to myself, what did I miss? But the bottom line was what exculpated, what finally exonerated David Milgaard was the DNA testing, which was not available at the time of the crime. Even when I was reviewing the case, the large semen sample had already been destroyed because of the blood type testing, and the small samples were still not amenable to DNA testing, but everyone believed they would be, and the exhibits had all been preserved.
When I heard a couple of years later — I was at that time the consul general in Los Angeles — that David Milgaard had been officially exonerated because of the DNA testing and that Larry Fisher was the guy who did it, I was delighted for David Milgaard. I was also astonished because there had been nothing to take us to Larry Fisher, no circumstantial evidence or anything that identified him as a possible suspect.
One has to be humble. That’s why I think it is so important that wherever there is any form of forensic examination or evidence that could provide definite and inarguable support for the guilt or innocence of somebody, it must be made available. It cannot ever be the case that somebody does not have access to that kind of analysis.
Now, it doesn’t mean it’s always going to be a help, but it was a very difficult case. The day that the Supreme Court gave me their opinion — and it was an opinion — they said they thought he had been in jail along enough and that the jury, if they had known about Larry Fisher, might have a reasonable doubt. This was before anyone knew it was Larry Fisher. I quashed the conviction that day. I didn’t wait until the next day; I did it right away, but knowing that this was only the first step. I felt bad because I knew that David Milgaard could be free, but that wouldn’t be the end of the story.
When he finally was exonerated, I was very happy. But it’s a case that really should be studied in criminology classes as the power of circumstantial evidence, how it builds on it and how in this case several forms of evidence that perhaps ought to have drawn attention elsewhere only reconfirmed the circumstantial evidence.
It’s a case that has haunted me. I must say, when I was packing up my papers after having had political retirement thrust upon me by the Canadian electorate in the fall of 1993, I discovered a very lovely Christmas card from Joyce Milgaard. I think she understood that I had done what I could. She cared very much. I was glad for her when David was finally clearly exonerated.
The Chair: If I may say, Ms. Campbell, the inquiry report, I think, exonerated your judgment in the case as well.
Senator Dalphond: I want to thank both our guests this morning, but I have no questions for the ministers. I read the speeches; I read the bill; I spoke about the bill. On principle, I think the three of us agree on the same principles. I’ll leave the time for my colleagues to ask questions.
The Chair: With the greatest respect, I’m going to try to now impose the four-minute limit on other questioners and answerers. It may turn out I will have to limit Ms. Campbell in her 30‑minute interventions. I hope you understand that.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to both the witnesses here before us.
Being a Mi’kmaw lawyer from Nova Scotia, what comes to mind is the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall Jr. and the royal commission that took place and issued 82 recommendations with respect to that wrongful conviction.
Systemic discrimination being inherent within the criminal justice system, I believe it was at every turn for Donald Marshall Jr. I just have a question with respect to the bill under the proposed new section 696.6(1)(5), under “Factors,” there are two there that I believe are new provisions:
(d) the personal circumstances of the applicant;
(e) the distinct challenges that applicants who belong to certain populations face in obtaining a remedy for a miscarriage of justice, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous or Black applicants . . . .
I’m looking at the words “personal circumstances,” “distinct challenges” and “circumstances of Indigenous or Black applicants.” I’m hoping that being the architect or drafter of this legislation, Mr. Lametti, you can comment further on why you felt that be included within this piece of legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Lametti: Thank you very much, senator. It’s an important part of this piece. Before the case of the three Manitobans, the “Woodhouse cousins,” as I call them, there was only Donald Marshall, and yet we know from statistics in Canada that there is an incredible over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples and Black people in the criminal justice system.
Statistically, it did not make sense that so few cases that got through the CCRG process to the minister were Indigenous people, women or Black Canadians. There simply had to be an impediment within the system that was preventing those cases from being reviewed, those kinds of wrongful convictions. Statistically, they simply had to have happened. There is no other explanation.
What we’re trying to do with these two articles that you cite is turn the mind of the commission explicitly and make it grounds, explicitly, for consideration, the particular circumstances of a person of Indigenous or Black background or other backgrounds as well in order that those stories can be heard.
If there is a way of interacting, for example, with authority that’s a result of intergenerational trauma, that could explain a person’s behaviour that otherwise might be interpreted as being the behaviour of someone who might be guilty or might give that impression. All of these things need to be incorporated within the working standards of the committee along with a process that is more accessible, that is less costly, that is less time-consuming such that we can get to the cases that perhaps aren’t homicide but are equally disruptive on the lives of communities, on the lives of the accused, on the lives of victims.
Remember, it doesn’t serve anybody to place someone in jail who is innocent. It doesn’t serve obviously the person and the person’s family, but it also doesn’t serve the community. If you think about it in the Indigenous context, that’s doubly important. So we need to fix this. This is one attempt you’ve rightfully cited as a measure which hopes to correct not just the over‑incarceration of Indigenous people but the access to justice that Indigenous people will have when mistakes are made.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have two questions.
I heard you talk a great deal about the significance of external evidence and scientific evidence with DNA. My first question is the following. In addition to a tool such as the board, shouldn’t we also expand access to the DNA Data Bank to include even more offences requiring a convicted offender to provide a DNA sample?
Yesterday, I identified the court martial component. It doesn’t seem clear. Even government officials didn’t seem convinced that the process included people sentenced by court martial, meaning military members or civilians on the outside. Did you intend to include the military members as well to ensure their access to this process? The question is for minister Lametti.
Mr. Lametti: Thank you, senator. It’s good to see you again in this capacity. We’ve had some positive interactions in the past, and this will continue today.
To answer the second question, I honestly didn’t have this power with regard to the bill. The national defence minister was responsible for doing this, based on the interaction between the two systems and the report by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. It’s possible to include the court martial. However, more work is needed on the relationship between the two systems before it can be included in the process.
However, I’m not against it.
In terms of evidence, this bill will address errors and flaws in the system. You talked about how to improve the investigation system or the evidence from the start. If I were minister, I would be open to ideas for improving the process in order to facilitate access and make better use of the data. That way, we could avoid this type of situation in the first place.
Senator Carignan: I want to hear Ms. Campbell’s response to the question about scientific evidence.
Ms. Campbell: It’s difficult to obtain scientific evidence for every process. However, whenever possible, we must have it. That’s the most important thing. There are also other options for identifying chemical elements in order to prove a person’s presence both with DNA and in other ways. More research is needed in this area. Usually, this can be done. However, I’m talking about cases in the United States where people who want to apply for a review can’t be tested to show the presence or absence of their DNA.
Sorry. I’m in Italy right now and I’m learning Italian. It’s a bit difficult for me to speak French.
Senator Carignan: We can come join you if you like. It wouldn’t be a problem.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. It’s lovely to see you both.
In my time as a journalist covering the courts, I certainly saw times where when someone was exonerated, there were cases where the judge would go through an exhaustive forensic analysis of where the case had gone wrong. But there is nothing in this bill that would allow for any kind of analysis or reporting of what the factors that led to the wrongful conviction were. There would be no way of knowing what role systemic racism played, what role a lack of effective counsel and perhaps lack of Legal Aid funding played. There would be no way of looking at whether there had been mistakes made by judges, police or prosecutors.
First for Mr. Lametti — I know he has to go imminently — but then I would love to hear at some greater length from Ms. Campbell: Do you think there should be something in the bill or in the observations to the bill that asks for a kind of commission-of-inquiry report to look at what went wrong and why?
Mr. Lametti: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question. I will have to leave immediately after this answer. Again, I thank the committee for its time, and I thank you for your study and work on this bill.
Senator, the main goal of the committee is to review cases and to send them back to appropriate levels of court in order to be reheard or in order to have legal interpretations re-evaluated, et cetera. So the main priority is to fix. That being said, there isn’t anything that precludes the committee from making those observations. My understanding is that given an amendment that was made by the House of Commons committee, the committee was entitled to report. There’s certainly nothing precluding it from doing that. It will depend on the resources that the committee has at hand and on the number of cases that it has at hand.
I would reiterate the priority is to do the fixing, but certainly along the way in the current process as Minister of Justice in reviewing — I reviewed a number of cases, and I’m pretty certain that I reviewed more cases than any prior justice minister, simply because they knew it was important to me, and they got the files up to me. But certainly in the course of investigating those cases and reading those files, I saw things that would have pushed me to report. I think had I remained as minister, the day this commission got off the ground, I would have launched an inquiry under the Inquiries Act into the work of the Winnipeg Police and Crown prosecutor George Dangerfield because there are a number of wrongful convictions that are a result of that combination, and I would like to have all the cases they looked at reviewed.
I don’t think this committee would be precluded from doing that, particularly given the House of Commons amendment. I would love to answer longer. With that, I’m going to leave you, and I appreciate your question, Senator Simons.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lametti, for joining us for the time you’ve made available.
Ms. Campbell, briefly, a view on Senator Simons’s question?
Ms. Campbell: Well, I think when cases are sent back to a court, there needs to be some explanation of why it’s being sent back. So I’m not sure what the threshold of disclosure would be for that. I mean, you can’t just say, “Oh, we think there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Would you have another look at it?” There have to be some reasons for that. But I think your point is very well taken that one has to learn as much as possible because the idea is to try and prevent things from happening again. But it’s sensitive because people do not like to be called out for systemic racism or for bad behaviour in dealing with accused people. Yet, those things must be part of the rationale for a commission to send it back to a court.
I’m not really answering your question. I’m not sure whether the process in the bill includes that or whether that is something that could be clarified, but surely it would have to be sent back with reasons; otherwise, how would an appeal court know where to begin?
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Campbell, for being here. Thank you also for being the first attorney general in this country to bring together women’s groups to talk about the issues of misogynist violence and racist violence that were experienced in the early 1990s.
One of the differences I found when I started working with women after years of working with young people and men was the extent to which women pleaded guilty. One of the concerns with this legislation, which was also identified by Justice Ratushny when she did the self-defence review, was the inability to look at miscarriages of justice due to sentencing — something David Milgaard himself actually advocated — in particular, to look at group reviews so you could see the kinds of systemic issues that you became very well aware of or probably were well aware of beforehand but took the effort to ensure legal analyses examined.
Both the minister yesterday and his officials maintained that the bill in its current form could allow for the kind of systemic and group review that we have recommended. I know Minister Lametti had a copy of this previously, but I think he just received a copy of the report that Justices LaForme and Westmoreland‑Traoré encouraged our office to do as a result of their consultation with us when they were providing advice on this.
What is your view on the importance of that type of review and, secondly, whether this legislation would allow for a review of that sort and how useful you see that kind of review being?
Ms. Campbell: Well, there are two things. One is the regulations that follow the legislation that can perhaps clarify some of the details of how it will be implemented and used.
The second is also a possibility of further amendment of the legislation. What you have to decide is, given the timing of where you are — maybe a future election, et cetera — if you want to get this bill into the statute books, see how it works and whether the outcomes are what you want, or whether it needs to be fixed. I say this as a former minister of justice who amended the Criminal Code. It’s an ongoing organic thing that you add to as you can.
For some people, there are things that are hard to acknowledge. As you well know, people often don’t want to see things like systemic racism; they are convinced it’s not something within. You have to find ways of showing the role that it’s playing in how people are perceived.
I think of the point you’re making about women pleading guilty. These are interesting statistics and dynamics. The question is, why is that? There are a variety of factors in place, one of them being lack of resources to fight the justice system.
I don’t have a simple answer to your question because I would have to get into it more deeply and follow it on a case-by-case basis. I like where you’re going with it. I think the questions you’re asking are very much part of what will eventually make the administration of this part of the law fairer and more just.
We’re talking about things in a way that back when I became minister of justice, a lot of people didn’t even see them. When I convened my National Symposium on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice, there were judges who came and said, “Before I came, I thought I was pretty liberal on these issues. Now I realize I didn’t know anything.” You have to help people discover what they don’t know and why it matters.
I’m hopeful that the minister is right and that you can be confident that these issues can be raised, but if not, regulations are another part of it. The other thing is then to push to amend. How the operating principles of a commission would be set out — they won’t be based just on the statute; there will be, obviously, terms of reference and whatever — is another area where you can expand and create more nuance in how things are addressed and what is taken into account.
I’m sorry. It’s not a satisfactory answer, but I’m with you on what you’re concerned about.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Campbell, I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to you to extend your time perhaps 10 minutes to give other senators an opportunity to pose questions. Is that okay at your end?
Ms. Campbell: I’m fine. I have a dog lying behind me here, not even fussing to be fed, so I’m good.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Ms. Campbell, you talked about the guilt mentality. I sat on the Parole Board of Canada. I know that people who don’t admit their guilt are released less often or later, either on bail or on request, than people who admit their guilt at the start. I believe that the documents said that 400 to 500 applications may be made per year. My issue with this is the following. If people have been found guilty and are in prison, they have nine years to apply because of this mentality. Could the board do anything to encourage these people to apply?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: What is important is if there is a process that appears to provide relief to applicants in a reasonably timely way, then I think that will encourage people who feel they have been wrongfully convicted to apply. If they feel that there isn’t much hope for it, if the backlog is too great, then that’s very discouraging for people.
There are some people who actually are guilty when they are convicted, and some of them may also want to apply because it’s often said that nobody in jail thinks they are guilty.
I think the credibility of the process will do a great deal to help sort that out. People will feel that there is a greater possibility of having their cases heard. Whether all of them will have merit, I can’t say.
What your colleague was saying about women who plead guilty, maybe it’s because they just don’t feel that they have any recourse. If there is this sense that after they have done that, maybe they could ask somebody to revisit what happened and allow them to say, “I pleaded guilty, but I wasn’t guilty,” then we begin to sort out a more just assignment of guilt and innocence in our criminal justice system. It will never be perfect, but I think this bill helps to deal with a backlog and create a sense that this is a process within which an applicant has a legitimate possibility of finding a review.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Hello, Ms. Campbell. I want to thank you for being the first. It’s often a lonely place. I’m just thanking you for occupying it and for the lively conversations you have had since leaving office.
My question follows up on the questions from Senator Prosper and Senator Pate. We will go back to the issue of systemic racism. This country is going through a reckoning on this issue. We now have in this country an Indigenous Justice Strategy and, since June, a Black Justice Strategy.
In your opening comments, you were talking about cognitive bias. I want you to go further and comment on what would be needed for those people who are still in the justice system who don’t see it. Those justice strategies speak about training. Do you see that as a route to making sure that the people who are going to be taking up space in this commission have the right lens and understand what they are seeing?
Ms. Campbell: I think training is very important. The question is this: How do you make it effective?
I was struck while watching the video with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Prince Harry was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper, and he was talking about people being bigots. When Anderson Cooper said, “Well, aren’t you a bigot?” Prince Harry said, “Let’s just say I see things differently now.” His training was living with somebody who was mixed race and seeing what that person encountered and encountering himself the bigotry that came from having married such a person. In other words, sometimes people just don’t see it because it’s not part of their life. They cannot understand it.
I think you can train people in an abstract way, and there is a lot of marvellous social and psychological literature and the work that Claudia Goldin did about how symphony orchestras auditioned to hire new musicians. If they auditioned behind a screen, they hired many more women because they had these cognitive biases about how women play. There are all these kinds of things. I don’t think there is any magic wand.
The more that you can create opportunities for people to have experiences where they hear the stories of people, and it isn’t just theoretical — not that that isn’t a good thing — it’s a very human and real sharing of what it means not to be believed, to be seen as less, to have people assume that you are not capable.
When I did my sexual assault legislation, we met with people in Toronto, representatives of women from communities of colour. They said, “The police think domestic violence is just part of our culture.” There are all sorts of ways in which people attribute behaviours and attitudes to communities that they don’t know or understand.
I think communities that are affected can play an important role in helping to create opportunities for learning, whether we’re calling it training or calling it learning and raising awareness and consciousness toward the capacity to do justice for people who are not like you and to see injustice where before you might have seen it as something not worth remarking on.
That’s where we have to go, but I wish there were a simple magic wand that you could wave. It’s not. It’s hard work, but a lot of good people are trying to share their experiences. The fact that we have a much more diverse legislative body, that people like yourself can speak first-hand of the reality that certain communities experience, is very valuable. And your colleagues can say, “Oh, I never knew that,” and, as Prince Harry says, “I see things I didn’t see before.”
Senator Clement: Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have two more senator questioners. With your indulgence, I would like to give them each the opportunity. There won’t be an opportunity for a second round.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you, Ms. Campbell, for joining us. With all due respect, I had some questions.
Mr. Chair, I would like us to leave some time for the second panel. I’ll refrain from asking Ms. Campbell my question. I don’t want to add to the time. I want to give the other panel a chance to have their say. I look forward to hearing from them too.
[English]
Senator Senior: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. I personally appreciate your presence here and all that you have represented for women across this country. Thank you for that. I want to take a few seconds to dig a little further into your previous comments, your last set of comments around the question that Senator Clement asked.
I think you quoted this when you said the way we think we think isn’t how we think. That resonates with me, particularly as I think about the makeup of the commission and who the commissioners are — not just in training people or allowing them to learn, but allowing room for people who think differently to be able to be on the commission so that there can be a shared learning around the table when cases and discussions are being had, particularly when it comes to issues of discrimination, racism, sexism, et cetera.
I don’t necessarily have a question. I want to think about it from the perspective of it not just being about training people, because many of us are tired of hitting our heads against the wall training people. It’s probably more about making sure that we have a diverse makeup of people who come from different perspectives and who can actually be legitimately participating and being a part of that process.
Ms. Campbell: On the Supreme Court of Canada advisory board that I served on for four different appointments, one of our community members was Stephen Kakfwi, an Indigenous person and former premier of the Northwest Territories. He was wonderful. He was very strong. He made a huge contribution to our discussions because he spoke from a reality that wasn’t the reality of many of the rest of us. I would say the other committee members were very open.
I have seen first-hand how that very diversity you’re talking about can absolutely elevate people’s understanding and create a much fairer, open, more just process. Job number one is the makeup of the commission. It has to be a commission that can hear what is being said and understand.
The Chair: Thank you both. I don’t think there will be an opportunity for a second round. We have already extended your generosity of time beyond the limits that we initially asked for, Ms. Campbell. Despite the fact that your dog seems to still be quiet in the background, I think we should take the opportunity to bring this session to a close.
In doing that, I want to extend my thanks to Mr. Lametti, in his absence, but also to you for the generosity of your time, the thoughtfulness of your answers and the great engagement with us here in the Senate. It’s a pleasure to see you once again, and I think that view is shared by many around the table. Thank you very much.
Ms. Campbell: Thank you for the great work you’re doing.
The Chair: Thank you.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome three wrongfully convicted and exonerated individuals to speak about their journeys. Welcome, Mr. Guy Paul Morin, Mr. Brian Anderson and Mr. Clarence Woodhouse. Welcome and thank you for joining us.
We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks and then, following that, there will be some conversation with senators. You saw a little bit of that opportunity when the last witnesses were here, and it will follow somewhat in the same way.
I’m going to invite Mr. Morin and Mr. Anderson to deliver remarks. Mr. Woodhouse will have an opportunity, if he wishes it, to share his thoughts through Mr. Anderson. Just to advise you of what happened here, the Translation Bureau sought but was unable to obtain an accredited Saulteaux interpreter for the meeting. So with Mr. Woodhouse’s limited proficiency in English, if he is comfortable, Mr. Anderson will assist in sharing with us Mr. Woodhouse’s thoughts.
Mr. Anderson, would you able to do that based on whatever Mr. Woodhouse would like to tell us?
Brian Anderson, wrongfully convicted person, as an individual: Yes, I will try.
The Chair: That would be great. Thank you very much for that.
I hope you will take your time in sharing your thoughts with us, but still leave us a bit of an opportunity for us to engage in dialogue with you. I would like you to be as comfortable as you can. I’ll try not to limit your remarks unduly. Mr. Morin, would you like to go first and speak with us for a number of minutes?
Guy Paul Morin, wrongfully convicted person, as an individual: Good afternoon, all. My name is Guy Paul Morin. I wrote out my thoughts here. Thank you for inviting me here today to hear some of my thoughts. I would like to speak about Bill C-40 because I suffered a miscarriage of justice when I was wrongly convicted for a murder I did not commit. I was arrested in 1985 for the murder of a 9-year-old girl named Christine Jessop. She was my neighbour. This false arrest was the beginning of a miscarriage of justice that lasted for 10 years.
During those 10 years, I endured two trials. At the first trial, I was acquitted, and at the second trial, I was convicted with a life sentence with no parole and incarcerated in six different prisons, including the maximum-security Kingston Penitentiary. I lived a nightmare. This was beyond bad. I was an innocent person — and still am — with no more than a few traffic tickets to my name, and yet this happened to me.
I would like you all to take a moment and imagine being stopped on a roadside by the police and told you’re charged with first-degree murder, and you know you’re innocent. I said, “You’re kidding.“ ”No, we’re serious.“ They were. I told them, ”You’re making a big mistake.“ They replied, “We don’t make mistakes.”
Really think about that for a second: “We don’t make mistakes.” This type of attitude is precisely why it’s so important for an independent commission to review possible wrongful convictions. Although legally my case lasted in the courts for 10 years, the reality is that it has never ended. This looms over my life and haunts me to this day. The day I was arrested, April 22, 1985, I was 25 years old, in my prime. The daunting stigma and the trauma remain forever.
I would like to add my voice to those of David and Joyce Milgaard. Wrongful convictions should never happen, but they do. When my DNA results were revealed, the second trial prosecutor, Leo McGuigan, said on television, “The justice system is not infallible.” No one knows that more than I do. Knowing that wrongful convictions happen, we owe it to them to have a fast and fair process to rectify it when it happens.
What this bill can offer to others in my situation in the future is hope. We would not have to rely on the Minister of Justice to review cases when, to begin with, they are part of the system that failed me. A new and independent commission that is open‑minded to the reality of wrongful convictions and is dedicated to truth and fairness would go a long way in shedding light on these injustices.
Despite my exoneration in 1995, the stigma remains. It has affected my family and my children. As recently as this summer, I had a phone conversation with a potential client who commented my name is not a good one to have. When I asked why, she replied, “Because he’s a killer.“ Wow. I said, ”Really?” This is 29 years after my exoneration and 4 years after the announcement of the real killer.
When someone is wrongfully convicted, it will taint their lives forever, and the least we owe them is to help identify such cases as quickly as possible and get them out of the prison system and courts so they can begin to repair their lives. The longer they are in the system, the heavier the stigma to their name and reputation.
I am grateful to have had James Lockyer and the Justice for Guy Paul Morin Committee, now Innocence Canada, help in my plight, an organization comprised of people who dedicate their time and effort to make a wrong right. I am also grateful to Rubin Carter and many other members of society who showed their respect and support and helped me fight for my freedom.
I personally knew David and Joyce Milgaard and their uphill battle for justice. Joyce Milgaard was also instrumental in fighting for justice in my case, and I think it would be the honourable thing to do to implement Bill C-40 on their behalf and for the people of Canada in the future caught in the whirlpool of injustice. You can’t go wrong doing it right, and here is the chance to make our justice system less flawed and more foolproof.
Let’s make it right. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin. Very impressive and thoughtful words. Mr. Anderson?
Brian Anderson, wrongfully convicted person, as an individual: Boozhoo.
[Ojibwe spoken]
My name is Brian Anderson. I am Anishinaabe from Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba. I too was wrongfully convicted for a murder when I was 18 years old. My co-accused were also from the same community. One of us, Allan, was only 17 when he was brought in for questioning and arrested. None of us had ever been in trouble with the criminal justice system. When we were brought in for questioning, we didn’t know what was happening. English was not our first language. I hardly spoke any English at all. I only spoke my own language, which is Ojibwe. In our community, many of the elders that I was with all the time only spoke Ojibwe. Therefore, my English was limited.
The police took advantage of our young age, our unknowing of the criminal justice system and the fact that we were Anishinaabe and did not speak English well. Being questioned by the police, they threatened me and used violence. It was easy for the police to make up confessions. These false confessions are the reason we were convicted.
When I was in jail, other inmates told me to appeal, but I didn’t know what an appeal was. I called my lawyer, and he was mad at me. He didn’t want to appeal. When I did go for appeal, I ended up going to the same people who convicted me, which is the Crown prosecutor and the appeal.
George Dangerfield went on to wrongfully convict many others, such as Thomas Sophonow, Frank Ostrowski, James Driskell and Kyle Unger, that we know of.
We need the Milgaard’s law in this Bill C-40. If we can get this through, that would be great.
It would be great if more people like my lawyers, Jerome Kennedy, James Lockyer and the people at Innocence Canada, were looking after these cases. Innocence Canada were the only ones to ever help me. They took on my case in 2019, and on July 18, 2023, I was acquitted. It took 50 years almost to the day to finally prove my innocence. That is an entire lifetime. That is time that I cannot get back. You cannot put a price tag on someone’s life.
The criminal justice system has never helped anyone here. They didn’t help me, and they did not help Ting Fong Chan’s family for the death of their father. Still to this day, the system is not helping me. I am still waiting for compensation for my wrongful conviction.
There is a high population of Indigenous people and Black people in the prison system. I know that from my own experience. Racism and corruption led to my wrongful conviction. Bill C-40 can help be the voice for other innocent people like me who need to be heard when no one is listening.
Governments like to speak about reconciliation. Let’s show it. Show me reconciliation. I have been fighting my whole life for this. I don’t want this to happen to any more people like me.
If Bill C-40 if passed, it would be a big help to others who were wrongfully convicted, for example, the Quewezance sisters from Saskatchewan. They’re still waiting for theirs, too.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Woodhouse, if you would like to share your thoughts, perhaps, through Mr. Anderson, or another option in addition might be that if you wished to do so — and maybe, Mr. Anderson, you could explain this to Mr. Woodhouse if the English is not good enough for him — you could submit a tape recording or a written letter in the language of your choice — Saulteaux — and we would arrange for it to be translated and shared with the whole committee.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, he would prefer that, a tape recording.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will make arrangements to make that possible.
Thank you, again, Mr. Anderson.
I’m now going to invite senators to have a conversation with you, beginning with Senator Arnot, who is the sponsor of Bill C-40 in the Senate.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses who have come today to help us deal with this bill. We certainly feel the passion of your remarks and the suffering that you’ve gone through because of the wrongful conviction.
I have a question for Mr. Morin.
Sir, the Kaufman inquiry found that police and prosecutors suffered from tunnel vision, focusing solely on you despite other evidence that was available. Therefore, I ask this question: Do you believe Bill C-40 offers sufficient mechanisms to examine, uncover and address police tunnel vision associated with wrongful convictions?
As a second component, after years under the stigma of a crime you didn’t commit — which you talked about — how do you think the justice system could better address the emotional and mental health needs of people who are exonerated?
For Mr. Anderson and Mr. Woodhouse, my question is this: Sirs, your wrongful convictions were largely based on unreliable witness testimony and coercion by the police. Do you believe that this bill will help address those kinds of issues for any other person in a situation like the one you found yourselves in?
Mr. Morin: Regarding that tunnel vision, without doubt, that was one of the main factors. It was one of the big words that were used during the inquiry. “Staggering” was the word that the honourable judge Fred Kaufman emphasized. It was a staggering amount of tunnel vision within this case. It was unbelievable. That, basically, is one of the main reasons that I think this arrest here to this guy happened. They focused on me. It didn’t matter what else came about aside from me. They focused on me. I felt like even in the second trial, when I saw the first — from the first trial, there was a Crown prosecutor who even went to the second trial, and I said, “Whoa, this feels like a personal vendetta.” It’s just going right for me, constantly.
The tunnel vision is a huge factor that’s a big problem. Sometimes when you get a gut feeling, don’t rely on it because it’s not always right. The training has to be done to police officers and those who deal in the system. Don’t always trust your gut feeling. Let the evidence speak for itself and not all this circumstantial evidence that we’re hearing about.
It’s like I heard at the second trial, bit by bit, add this piece, this piece and this piece, and make sure you add it all up. All that circumstantial is enough to put the person away, but not always. It’s not a smoking gun. That was the problem regarding tunnel vision.
Regarding your second question, yes, once you’re put in the system, you’re stigmatized, and it’s a stigma that lasts forever. The problem still exists. Like I mentioned, a lady I was speaking with, I couldn’t believe what she said: “You have that name. It’s not a good one to have.” I said, “Why?” She said, “Well, he was a killer.”
Wow, you know? I was very surprised to this day, but maybe not, because what happens is when you’re stigmatized, it stays with you. What happened is I had ten years in the justice system that people used to tell me when they would meet me on the street, “You’re like a soap opera. We see you on TV all the time.” The problem with that is the person who was found to match the DNA result — Calvin Hoover was the person who was found in the end result through DNA that matched — he had one week, maybe, of media coverage. I had ten years of it. To this day, I go to people’s houses, and when some of them talk to me, some say, “I know about your case.” I say, “Did you know that they actually found the real killer for Christine Jessop?” And they say, “Are you kidding me?” They’re so surprised. I say, “So you missed that blurb of news, too, for that short period of time.” To this day, this is a problem for me. I don’t like what has happened.
I love life, but I don’t like what life has given me.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin.
Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I’m not familiar with the justice system, like I said, so I really don’t know how to answer your question. Maybe if you have lawyers who could jump up and speak for you right away, that would be the best way to go about it, so it doesn’t continue further and further, question after question. Just stop it right there.
The sooner you solve the problem, the better.
Senator Batters: Thank you so much. I’m humbled to be here with you today. I’m the critic of this bill, but I really view it as my job to try to make this bill better and to try to, hopefully, have fewer of these cases as we go on.
Mr. Morin, when I hear your name, I think of someone who has persevered. I don’t think of a killer. I think of someone who persevered through enormous challenges, and I hope that you take that away today. I hope that when there’s news coverage about this, what you’ve just stated about who the real killer was will be part of that, to have more than just a small blurb, because I agree with you that it was a relatively small blurb in that equation.
I have a few questions to try to make this bill better. The commission that’s set up under Bill C-40 can suggest just a few limited things. One of those is an appeal to the court, but it does not have the power to recommend, refer an applicant for a pardon or a record suspension as one of their options. That is what the report by Justices LaForme and Westmoreland-Traoré had recommended.
I’m wondering, Mr. Morin and Mr. Anderson, would you like to see the commission have the chance to have those types of expanded options for people who have been wrongfully convicted?
Mr. Morin: For sure, without a doubt. If the evidence speaks clearly for itself, there is no reason for not having a pardon. It’s as simple as that. It really comes down to the facts of the case.
The circumstantial stuff that was earlier talked about by the Honourable Kim Campbell, it was circumstantial evidence when it came to David Milgaard. Sometimes, it’s by chance. It’s a freaky thing in life some things can happen. For him to have the same blood type, A, and match, I mean, that’s freaky. So these coincidences can sometimes steer you in the wrong direction. If that’s what happens, then you get miscarriages of justice. So we have to have that smoking gun sort of idea.
Senator Batters: Maybe I’ll just go on to my second question because I don’t want to run out of time so my colleagues don’t have time to ask questions.
Bill C-40 mandates that the timeline for the commission to handle wrongful conviction review applications is “as expeditiously as possible.” That’s all it says as far as actual detail for it, but it doesn’t define that. It doesn’t say anything about what “as expeditiously as possible” means. I was asking the justice officials here yesterday about that, and I didn’t get much detail about that at all.
I’m wondering, given the lengthy time frames that all of you had to endure in these wrongful conviction nightmares, if you think that perhaps this bill or even regulations to the bill should have some detail about some timelines that they need to adhere to rather than just leave it up to them as to what “as expeditiously as possible” means.
Mr. Morin: I can say based on what happened to me, the Minister of Justice was dealing with me at that time. That’s why I think it took 10 years. It was only through DNA that resolved this case. When they asked my lawyers if I was willing to go for it, I said by all means, that will put an end to it.
I once quoted this, and I will say it again: “The justice system failed me; science saved me.” It was as simple as that. Why I said that is I think I’d still be in the justice system if it wasn’t for this absolute verdict of DNA results. So I was quite happy with that. I already knew I had a couple of things under my sleeve. One of them was my innocence. I always knew that one day the truth will set me free, but what a battle.
Now, timeline, as you’re talking about, when it comes to that, of course, it would be best if things were done in a timely manner, where the case would be resolved, but that’s not always the case. It takes time to scrutinize and make all absolutely right. Precision takes time. As far as I’m concerned, when you have all the facts, everything compiled properly, and then you present that, then I think justice can unravel properly.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Just briefly, Mr. Anderson, would you like to see more detailed time frames set out that provide more detail as to what “as expeditiously as possible” means? Would you like to see a more detailed time frame, given the severity of what we’re dealing with here?
Mr. Anderson: Well, a lot of times all they give you is time, time in jail. But for something like that, to try and prevent these cases from going further, we need something or some people who can follow these court proceedings and, at the end of the day maybe, like get your heads together, see if you can end this case right there before it goes any further. I think that would be the best way.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Mr. Morin, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Woodhouse. Thank you for your courage, for your resilience, for your patience with respect to a system that is there to supposedly protect people but, as you know all too well, is imperfect, especially in light of the things we heard, like tunnel vision, unconscious bias and even police coercion.
We heard Minister Lametti talk about this bill being within the confines of the criminal justice system, ordering a new trial or referencing a Court of Appeal, going to a Court of Appeal. But, Mr. Anderson, you haven’t been compensated yet.
Mr. Anderson: No, I haven’t.
Senator Prosper: And I do know of when Donald Marshall Jr. was getting into matters of compensation that there were some strong arguments put forward from government representatives who tried to discount the quality, value and meaning of his life because he was an Indian. So I know compensation is within the civil realm, and you’re never going to be fully compensated for what happened, but they try.
What are your thoughts on that next chapter of being compensated? Do you think this bill should lend certain insights to providing guidance for compensation for the wrongs that were committed against either of you?
Mr. Anderson: That would be great if the Senate could help out. Cases like this, I do need help because if everything else is so slow — like, I’m almost 70 years old already. What good is compensation to me if I don’t last? I won’t be able to see that. I would like to see some of it at least. That would be a big help.
Yes, there should be help from the Senate. Does anybody second that?
The Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Dalphond: First, I would like to express my regrets for the terrible miscarriages of justice you all suffered. It certainly shows the need for an independent commission, but also to address ways to prevent that from happening within the system first because the commission is going to address as an ultimate resort to redress something that should not have happened. I think it is only one side of the equation, but it is certainly a safety valve to some extent, but at what price? It’s certainly striking to me.
I would like to maybe concentrate more on the bill, which is really after the wrongful conviction happened. So you were serving time in jail. I suspect I know the answer to this question, but could you tell us how easy it was to get access to a group of supporters like the Guy Paul Morin group that became Innocence Canada or for you, Mr. Anderson, to get access to a lawyer or somebody to assist you to get a review? Could you describe that experience and the fact that you were left, if you don’t mind?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, it would have been nice to have guidance right away, but I had nothing to get. We did write many letters to various people and organizations, hoping someone would listen and do something about my case. Not until Innocence Canada came around and looked at my case did things start picking up.
It would be nice if when a person first comes out of jail, they give you a place to stay, not like a halfway house. I was in a halfway house, and I didn’t like that. You’re still not free. You can’t just go find work. Your movements are limited. I had a radius of 80 kilometres from where I stayed. I couldn’t go any further. If I went further, I would get suspended.
Then, when I did apply for work here and there, I was discriminated against. They’d ask, “Where is your résumé?” I don’t have a résumé. What’s that? I’ve never heard of it.
If I did write something down, then they would say, “You’re missing these years. Where were you?” Well, I was in jail. So that worked against me, and I missed out on a lot of good jobs because of that. There was a time I worked for Manitoba Hydro, but after they found out that I was in jail, they found an excuse to get rid of me. That was it.
Mr. Morin: What an uphill battle, right?
Mr. Anderson: It is.
Mr. Morin: For sure. You try and get a job after you’ve been plastered on the news negatively. It was a problem, for sure.
I’ll tell you what happened. I was lucky to get one great job. I thought it was good. I called my lawyer and said, “I want to take a job over at the airport.” He said, “Oh, really?” “Yes, it’s quite an interesting job.” So what happened was I said I want to test something out. I want to see if my name is cleared from the Criminal Code. Am I still declared a first-degree murderer? Am I still in the books? Or is my name totally erased? He said it should be. I said, “Great answer.” It should be? I said I’m going to go apply for the job. I did all the testing. They said, “Great, you did well.”
They hired me. Then they said, “Oh, by the way, we’re going to do a background check on you through the RCMP.” That’s fine. It should be good, right? That did come back clear. I was quite satisfied and happy. I actually stuck with the job. I liked it. I was pushing back 777s, 737s — all the big planes you can think of — and loading and unloading them. I became a supervisor within a year and a half. They liked my work, and I liked it, and they could see that.
This is what happened in the end. That’s a good story. All the other things that I went to school for — refrigeration, air‑conditioning, electrical and gas fitter — I went to school and made myself ready for the future. Then within the next year, I’m slapped with a first-degree murder charge, and it never stopped from there. So what can I say? This is the reality of life, of what happens when you’re thrown in my shoes.
Senator Dalphond: You should not stay in prison for long when you’re the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Mr. Morin: Right.
Senator Dalphond: We need to deal with this not in 25, 29 or 50 years. We have to deal with this in the following months or in the coming year or two. Thank you very much. Your testimonies are very powerful.
Mr. Morin: I’m just familiarizing you with the reality of what has happened. I was going to wear a crest here today that used to say, “The Three Ms.” I was known as one of them. It was Milgaard, Marshall and Morin. They were printed out, and I wore them on my lapel, as well as other members who were fighting for my freedom. “The Three Ms” were known back in the day, in the 1980s.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you both.
Mr. Morin: They had it rough, and I had it rough.
Senator Simons: I cannot tell you what a privilege it is to be here with the three of you. I want to thank you for your clarity and for your courage.
Mr. Morin, you talked about the way science cleared you, but for Mr. Anderson and Mr. Woodhouse, there was no DNA evidence. There was no science to clear you. You were convicted 50 years ago, and it took you that long to get exonerated.
I wonder if you could tell us two things. Both Mr. Morin and Mr. Anderson, you’ve talked about the difficulty. This bill would require people to go back to court and ask the court to exhaust all appeals, so there is a little bit of an exit ramp in extraordinary circumstances, but for the most part, you would have to go back to the court. You both said that the problem with that is you’re going back to the same institution that convicted you in the first place. I wanted you to expand on that.
Mr. Anderson, maybe you could speak a bit for Mr. Woodhouse too. I want to understand this. You served your time. You were out on parole. You still fought to be exonerated decades after you were released from prison. I wonder if you could explain to us why it was so important for you to have that public exoneration long after you’d been released.
Mr. Anderson: Well, because I’m innocent. I didn’t do anything. I need to prove my innocence. If somebody does you wrong, you can’t forget it. It bothers you. You need to have that corrected.
Senator Simons: How much confidence do you have that a bill like this, which requires people in most cases to go back to the courts, will actually work? Do you think people will have faith? Based on your own experiences, for both of you — Mr. Morin, you talked about how when you went back to the second trial, you saw the same prosecutor who had the same fixation on getting his man, and he has decided that’s you.
Mr. Morin: Exactly.
Mr. Anderson: You’re not going to get anywhere with the same people, same prosecutor, same judge. You’re not going to go anywhere.
Senator Simons: The thing that I think is so interesting about Mr. Morin’s case is there was a public inquiry afterwards. It wasn’t just that the DNA evidence exonerated you; there was a whole inquiry that found prosecutorial misconduct.
Mr. Morin: So I’m the lucky one, right?
Senator Simons: It just seems to me that without the inquiry, we’d have no way of diagnosing what went wrong. Would you like to see a system where we not just exonerated people but went back and looked? I would like to see a look back at Mr. Dangerfield’s — a proper look at all the damage that one prosecutor did. It was a long time ago, but we can’t learn until we understand where things went wrong in the first place.
Mr. Anderson: My case is the oldest one from all the wrongful convictions he had, so he probably found a way to convict, and he continued on and on until he was at the end of the line.
Senator Simons: If we don’t stop the problem, there is no justice for the defendants. In Christine Jessop’s case, the actual person who raped and killed her was out on the streets for years. I don’t think there are any other crimes attributed to him, but that may be because we don’t know or just that it was a blessing.
That’s the other thing about wrongful convictions. People talk about the victims, but the victims aren’t getting justice if the wrong people are in jail and the actual perpetrators are walking free.
The Chair: We have three more senators who would like to pose questions to you. With your agreement, and with senators who may have to leave immediately, fair enough, we should provide the opportunity for these three more conversations to take place if that’s okay with you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all three of you for being here. I’m going to echo what many of my colleagues have said. It’s really our privilege and a humbling honour to have you all before us.
Mr. Morin, you mentioned the three Ms. You and I don’t know each other, but Marshall Junior — Donald Marshall — was a friend, and he introduced me to David Milgaard, who became a friend. You, Mr. Anderson, mentioned the Quewezance sisters; they are two of the women in this report, and they’re also friends whom I have known for over 30 years.
It’s hard for people, even people like me who have walked with folks in the system for the better part of 50 years, to understand how difficult it is to get your voices out of the prisons. I would like you, if you’re comfortable, to explain more to my colleagues just how challenging it is once those doors close — even when the police door closes when you’re being questioned — to get in contact with your lawyers, the outside world and to have your lawyers understand, in particular, for you, Mr. Anderson.
I regret greatly, Mr. Woodhouse, that we have not provided the space and the opportunity for you to express yourself before us. That is emblematic. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met in the system who were convicted apparently on confessions when they can’t even speak the language in which they were questioned.
If you’re comfortable talking a bit about that — it is something I see every day. I often say if I had a lawyer for every single person in prison, there are not always conviction reviews but always court cases that could be unfolding because of the extent to which there is control over your lives.
Some people may not understand that when you’re serving a life sentence, it is until you die. The reason why a sentence review and exoneration are so important for someone serving a life sentence is if that isn’t lifted, then you have to continue to report. You have to continue to have every facet of your life scrutinized until the day you die, even if you are in the community.
I don’t know if there is anything more — if you’re comfortable. I don’t want anyone to be uncomfortable or any more uncomfortable than you may be already. Explain how some of that weighs on you when you’re inside.
Mr. Anderson: It’s like losing your keys, for example, to try and get into your house. What do you do? You just stand there and wait for somebody to come open the door for you. That’s the way it is. Once you are thrown in jail, you need help. Nobody is going to listen to you when there’s no one else around. It’s very hard once you get trapped in there.
Mr. Morin: For myself, I can tell you, I was on my way to a band rehearsal that night. I get pulled over. Then I get interrogated for what felt like forever, at least five or more hours, and then thrown in one of the jail cells down below.
Then I’m paraded the next morning in front of all the media. This guy has never seen a camera before, basically, from the media. And here, that’s just the beginning. You get paraded in front of all the media. Then I was thrown in Whitby Jail. The first thing I see from the media who took shots of me, they hold the paper up at the window of the door with my face on it on the front page of the Toronto Sun, and it doesn’t look good. The prisoners say, “You’re a baby killer.” It just goes on and on.
Eventually, I get my trial nine months later. I get acquitted. But the majority of the public thinks you’re more guilty than when you — I got acquitted. But everyone had a reversal thought. You get acquitted; the justice system is supposed to say, “Hey, it worked.” No. They feel that, no, this guy got away with it. Unfortunately, that was the mindset of most people for some reason. The media told me they thought the same thing.
The second trial, when I was convicted, you could have heard a pin drop in that courtroom. They were crying, a lot of people. They said, “You get convicted, and everyone is crying.” It is this reversal of the thought. They thought this is the time I should have been acquitted, the second trial. It didn’t work that way. Everything was reversed.
When I saw prisoners, when I was thrown in Millhaven, after that acquittal — the second trial — oh, my goodness. They threw me into the Middlesex Detention Centre in London. And there’s a solid steel door. I had to lay down on my stomach, put my nose at the bottom of that door and breathe all the air I could. I was just so suffocated by the verdict.
Then I went to Millhaven later, and then I went to Kingston. The routes I had to endure, the torture of it all, when I heard the prisoners, some of them said, “After what I saw at the second trial, and what we know about your case, there’s no hope for us in the justice system.” That’s what some prisoners — they were crying. These guys are amazing in their own way. You know, they’re a stature that I’ve never met before, but I have to give them credit. They’re not all bad. They’re not all bad.
Just because you think some prisoners are in that prison, that doesn’t mean that — I was one of them. I’m an innocent. I used to hear some prisoners say, “Let me guess. You’re innocent.” I said, “Actually, I am.” That didn’t cut any water. I mean, it’s unbelievable how some think. But I was innocent, and I still am. This is the thing. When you’re caught in the system and you’re stigmatized, good luck. It’s a problem to live life onwards.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I was touched by all your remarks. I’ll be brief. Yesterday, we heard department officials talk about Bill C-40. We were told that a person could be sent to conduct investigations in prisons. It might be worthwhile to hire a person to go around the prisons. That way, prisoners or incarcerated people would have the chance to talk to this type of person from the start of their incarceration.
[English]
Essentially, what I am asking is if there was someone who systematically went to the prisons, circulated around the prisons, who was employed by the commission or by contract, who could go around as part of the commission whom you could have seen right away, what is your feeling on that?
Mr. Morin: You have to start somewhere. If there is an independent commission that’s going to eventually, hopefully, come about, there has to be a mandate and protocol of how things are going to be done.
Of course, you have to introduce yourself and get familiar with the individual who would be behind bars, see what the particulars are about the case, see where the flaws are, if there are flaws. There will be some proclaiming innocence who are not innocent, but there are innocent people in jail.
If that’s the way it has to be done where you slowly learn the case and make it so that you understand it, the flaws that are there, they have to be announced, brought to the Minister of Justice, saying, “We’re going to have an appeal going again; this person has a strong case of innocence,” or maybe a new piece of evidence has come about, or maybe a change of testimony where someone may have accidentally changed their mind or maybe lied. That happens.
When it comes to the person who would be going to prisons to look at the case and review it, I think it’s important that it’s done properly and as fast as it can be done, but with precision. I think that’s important.
Senator Clement: Thank you for your testimony. I want to acknowledge the burden of your having to tell your story over and over again, the labour of it.
Thank you, Mr. Morin, for speaking about Innocence Canada, for speaking about community, because that’s often the way people will get through things. Thank you to the people who are here with you. Thank you for mentioning Rubin Carter as well. That’s an important name for many communities in this country.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for speaking to us in your language — it is important — and for speaking about the disconnection that you felt from community, from housing to transport to all of those issues.
Senator Aucoin, Senator Pate and Senator Dalphond were getting at this: When this bill passes, how do we best reach the wrongfully convicted?
Mr. Anderson: There should be a notice passed around in the institutions so everybody can see it because a lot of them don’t know about this. Like a newspaper, for example — I don’t even know if they have newspapers. Back then, when I was in, they were just coming out with TVs. Before, they didn’t have TVs, just radio, no outside world contacted.
So if you send notices into the institutions so everyone has a chance to read them, then whoever is sitting there — “Hey, this is for me” — then they can apply.
Mr. Morin: Well, we’re lucky. We have computers, we have TVs, and we have access to pretty well anything. And the grapevine within that prison system that we have is quite phenomenal, actually. Word gets around. Word gets around really quickly. When prisoners told me, “We know everything about your case and about you, more than you think, and it really scares us to know that you got convicted. There is no hope for us” — when I hear those words, they have access to having this information. Innocence Canada are already known. They’re in there already. They know. Those who are innocent will come forward and access the commission that would be implemented in making the justice system better.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Nia:wen.
The Chair: Thank you both. That concludes our round of questioning, but I did want, with the assistance of Mr. Anderson, to invite Mr. Woodhouse if he would like to share any thoughts through you in the conversation or even, perhaps, in his own language, and we would endeavour to have it translated and shared with committee members. I feel a bit bad that he has been here generously with his time but has been somewhat precluded from participating.
Would you ask him, Mr. Anderson, whether he would like to say a few words either through you or in his own language?
Mr. Anderson: He doesn’t know what to say here.
Maybe just introduce yourself.
Clarence Woodhouse, wrongfully convicted person, as an individual: My name is Clarence Woodhouse. I was in jail. I don’t know what to say. The only thing I could say totally — in Ojibwe — that’s the only thing I can do.
Mr. Anderson: So he can go ahead — they’ll probably record it anyway.
[Ojibwe spoken].
Mr. Woodhouse: [Ojibwe spoken] recording it.
Mr. Anderson: They’re recording it.
Mr. Woodhouse: I’m just going to record it.
Mr. Anderson: [Ojibwe spoken].
Mr. Woodhouse: [Ojibwe spoken]. I was in that prison for nothing. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson: That’s good.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Woodhouse.
I think this will bring this session to a close. I think it’s fair to say that none of us in this room will ever fully appreciate the suffering, the loss, in so many ways, that each of you have experienced, but your time with us, if you haven’t already appreciated it, has been a powerful contribution to our own understanding as best we can do. I want to thank you on all our behalf for that.
I also want to say that your being here, helping to make better a system that imposed injustice on you, is an act of incredible generosity and a more generous gift to us than you know and more generous than most people would make in the circumstances.
I think it is a memorable experience for all of us, and I want to thank you for being here and spending time with us and so generously answering our questions.
This brings this session to a close. Thank you, all.
(The committee adjourned.)