Honourable senators, this is my encore from yesterday.

I want to remind you that I spent about 30 minutes making these three points.

First, there is a need for a remedy for wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, and it’s clarion. There is no doubt whatsoever what the problem is.

Second, this bill is fit for purpose. It is an amalgam of best practices, especially from the United Kingdom and Scotland. The bill is sound. Any alleged flaw is not deep enough to merit amending the bill or a vote against it. A review of the bill will take place in five years, which will be an opportunity to fix any issues that may arise.

Third, this legislation is the most innovative and transformational change in the criminal justice system in Canada in the 21st century. It makes the system more equitable and will make Canada a better place.

Colleagues, Bill C-40 is aimed at transforming how wrongful convictions are reviewed in Canada. The bill embodies a commitment to justice, ensuring that those who have been failed by our legal system are given a fair opportunity for redress. It is a crucial step forward, and, although it has sparked much debate in the other place and in the Senate, the points of broad agreement underscore the necessity and importance of the bill.

To reiterate, the core of the bill is the creation of an independent commission to handle allegations of wrongful convictions: an improvement that everyone can agree upon. Moving the responsibility away from the Minister of Justice to an impartial body ensures that the political interference that may occur is minimized and that justice will be more accessible. This is essential to restoring public trust, especially when the current system has allowed only 30 or so cases to be referred for new trials or appeals over the past two decades.

Another strength of the bill is that it emphasizes transparency. Requiring the commission to publish its decisions online assures accountability, and it allows Canadians to understand how these decisions are made.

All perspectives recognize this as an important model over the current opaque system, which often leaves applicants and the public without meaningful insight into decision making.

The expansion of eligibility under this legislation is another vital reform. This bill ensures that individuals who previously had no recourse — such as those who pled guilty — can now seek justice.

We also know that many vulnerable individuals, including Indigenous and racialized people, that did enter guilty pleas under duress could seek redress; those who may have feared a harsher penalty and such have pled guilty to avoid such a penalty improperly.

Bill C-40 acknowledges this reality, ensuring that the most marginalized Canadians have access to a fair process. Additionally, the bill provides critical support services for applicants. These supports are especially necessary for incarcerated individuals, who often have limited access to legal assistance. Such practical measures make justice more equitable and accessible for those who need it most.

That said, there are important concerns that, of course, merit some discussion. I will raise those now.

One issue that has been raised is the lowered threshold for investigations — from requiring proof that a miscarriage of justice “likely occurred” to only needing “reasonable grounds to believe” that one may have occurred. While some fear this could invite frivolous applications, the lowered threshold is essential to uncover hidden injustices that the current system overlooks, especially for those without the means to prove their innocence on their own.

Second, there is also a debate about the removal of the appeals exhaustion requirement. Some argue that the commission should remain a remedy of last resort. However, rigid appeals processes can prevent marginalized individuals from accessing justice, particularly those with limited financial resources or inadequate legal representation. Giving the commission the discretion to waive this requirement ensures that the review process remains focused on fairness, not just procedural formalities.

Third, another concern has been raised about the composition of the commission, with questions about whether including non‑lawyers will undermine the quality of decisions. However, miscarriages of justice often result from more than just legal errors. Systemic biases, investigative mistakes and societal prejudice also play significant roles. Ensuring that the commission includes diverse perspectives beyond legal expertise will help address these underlying issues.

Fourth, some have expressed concern about increased applications overwhelming the system at the start. However, other jurisdictions with independent commissions — such as the U.K. and Scotland — have managed increased caseloads without sacrificing efficiency. With proper resources, Canada’s commission will be able to strike a similar balance, providing timely relief to those wrongly convicted. We have heard from international experts that the initial influx balances out quickly to a manageable flow.

Ultimately, this bill reflects a shared understanding that miscarriages of justice are profound moral failures that must be corrected.

No system is perfect, but it is our responsibility to create mechanisms that allow us to identify and remedy those failures swiftly and effectively. Bill C-40 provides us with such a mechanism — a transparent, inclusive and fair process that ensures no individual will be failed twice by our justice system.

The importance of passing this legislation cannot be overstated. The bill offers meaningful solutions to systemic problems that have persisted for decades in this country. It is time to move forward with a justice system that is responsive to the needs of all Canadians, especially those who are marginalized.

I have had many good and candid discussions with Minister of Justice Virani. I told him that I support this bill because I have witnessed the need for it first-hand and that I would not sponsor a bill that I did not believe in.

To be frank, I believe that Bill C-40, as presented, is the best meaningful attempt to provide redress for wrongful convictions in many decades. We need this bill in order to make our justice system more just, accessible, accountable and equitable for everyone.

Bill C-40 does this by providing a pathway to address and mitigate such miscarriages. It offers a pathway for a citizen of Canada who is convicted of a crime to assert that their rights were not respected, that their life was torn apart and that they are owed a remedy. It affords an opportunity to be heard when, in the past, no one was interested.

The overarching purpose of Bill C-40 is to better detect, remedy and prevent wrongful convictions. Bill C-40 sets out a new path for Canada to deal with miscarriages of justice in a more efficient and transparent manner, which, ultimately, will help increase public confidence in our criminal justice system.

All people in Canada must have confidence that the justice system is there to protect them — that is the goal — and also that the justice system can be trusted.

This is the most important amendment to the Criminal Code in many decades. If you have any doubts about this bill, please remember the compelling testimony of Mr. Guy Paul Morin. He spoke about his pain, anxiety, fears, frustration, anguish and anger about the injustices he suffered in being wrongfully accused and then wrongfully convicted.

His testimony brought tears to his eyes — and to those of many of our Senate colleagues who were in the committee room when he gave his compelling testimony.

This bill is an important amendment to the Criminal Code because it repairs a known, glaring, decades-long flaw in the justice system. It will produce a positive, innovative, transformational change in the administration of justice in Canada.

I urge all members of this chamber to support swift passage of Bill C-40, without amendment, so that these important reforms can be implemented for the benefit of all Canadians, especially those who may have been wrongly convicted and have yet to receive a remedy.

A wrongful conviction against a person on any Criminal Code charge strikes at the heart and core of the administration justice because it strikes at public confidence in the system.

I am proud to be given the opportunity to sponsor this bill. I am confident this bill is well crafted. My private hope is to be able to tell my grandchildren — currently eight in number — this Christmas that I had a small role in bringing this bill to fruition.

Thank you.

There were a number of observations, and I supported every one of them. They are there for a purpose. They are there to inform, I believe, the Minister of Justice and the commission, as it is eventually formed, about the intention of Parliament, and I support that 100%.

An observation is just a suggestion. Ultimately, the commission will make its own determination. I have great confidence that those who will be appointed to the commission will be professional, neutral and have high integrity. They will not be swayed or told how to do their business. They won’t be told how to create the policies and the practices that they will develop.

They will be independent; I’m sure of it. I would be surprised if they felt any pressure to take any particular cases on in advance of others.

The report you are referring to is the one that Senator Pate created. It is a compelling report, and it reinforces the need to protect Indigenous women because of the coercion that happened to the 12 in the example, which was clear and obvious.

Senator Arnot, the time for debate has expired. I see Senator Batters has a supplementary question, and I know Senator Carignan also wants to ask a question.

Are you asking for more time?

An hour or so. Yes, I would like more time, please.

Senator Arnot is asking for more time. Is leave granted?

Five minutes.

The reason “in the interests of justice” is in there is to give that commission some flexibility, some creativity and some room to manœuvre, based on what they might see in front of them. That’s the purpose of that statement. It is an important one to have in there because it’s in addition to the fundamental threshold.

I think it allows the commission to creatively approach their mandate in a way that they see fit. It has enough parameters in it to be useful to them, I’m sure.

Thank you, senator. We talked about recourse for correcting miscarriages of justice for our military members. I listened to witness testimony and attended committee hearings, just as you did. I heard the extremely moving testimony of Mr. Morin, and I was in touch with him afterward, in fact. What he went through was terrible.

Why shouldn’t a military member who is the victim of a miscarriage of justice get the same recourse that is given to anyone else who is found guilty, but not our military members?

Senator Carignan, you did put forward some amendments to accommodate that. I think at the time Senator Dalphond pointed out that Bill C-66 in the other place right now would be the best place to do that.

In order to make an amendment like that, we have to have some evidence. We really didn’t have some evidence that this could occur. I’m not saying it wouldn’t occur or that it has not occurred, but, certainly, there is no evidence from the news media that any soldier was incarcerated for 23 years and was wrongfully convicted. I don’t think that should be the case. I think it would be proper to bring that up in Bill C-66.

The other principal reason that it didn’t fit this time is because we would have to consult with the Department of National Defence and the Judge Advocate General. We would have to have more evidence before that could be accommodated as an amendment, and that did not happen.

I’m not against that at all. I think over the course of five years, there will be more experience with this commission, and it may well be that at that time you could take in people in the military justice system who feel they have been wrongfully convicted.

That’s for the future.

Senator Arnot, just because you didn’t hear about it in the media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There have been a dozen such cases in England. I think you would agree that one case is one case too many. There is no reason for a member of our armed forces to be treated any less favourably than a civilian.

As I say, I don’t disagree with the thought. I don’t think it is the right time to do it with this bill. I think it can be accommodated in the future, and a lot of homework has to be done with the soldiers in Canada, with National Defence and the Judge Advocate General. The military justice system is a thing unto itself, and we really didn’t explore that in any detail at all.

I do know that there were a few cases in Scotland and a few cases in the United Kingdom; that’s true, but I know of none in Canada.

I’d like to thank Senator Arnot for his speech.

Honourable senators, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today in support of a bill that is essential for justice and human rights in our country.

Bill C-40, which aims to create an independent commission to deal with cases of wrongful conviction in Canada, is a very important piece of legislation. Miscarriages of justice continue to be a painful and unacceptable reality. Lives are shattered and families destroyed when innocent people are convicted.

I must begin by highlighting certain concerns expressed by a number of witnesses during the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s study. In particular, I’m thinking of retired Justice Harry LaForme and law professor Kent Roach, two highly respected experts in the field of Canadian justice.

According to Justice LaForme, for this commission to work effectively, it must have full investigative powers and be truly independent of the government. He believes that the commission’s proximity to the government could limit its effectiveness and call its impartiality into question.

Professor Roach expressed concern that the bill’s mandate is too focused on individual cases, which would limit the commission’s ability to address wider, systemic issues.

Mark Knox, a Canadian lawyer committed to defending the rights of the wrongfully convicted, said he was worried about the risk of creating an excessively cumbersome and slow bureaucratic process that could delay the review of certain cases.

Many other witnesses stressed the importance of ensuring diversity on the commission and including experts from different backgrounds, such as people with experience defending the rights of accused individuals and vulnerable communities, such as the Indigenous and Black communities that make up a large proportion of the prison population.

It was very moving to hear Guy Paul Morin, Brian Anderson and Clarence Woodhouse describe how their lives are still a perpetual hell, even though they were exonerated of their crimes.

Lawyer James Lockyer said:

Between them, they waited more than 100 years for justice. It’s important that we all understand that if there had been a miscarriage of justice commission 50 years ago, it would have saved them decades of their lives.

Despite these concerns, it is vital to recognize how important Bill C-40 is to the Canadian justice system. We have already seen too many cases where individuals were exonerated after spending many years behind bars. This commission could speed up the independent review process, allowing for hundreds of additional cases to be reviewed. At least, that is what happened when similar commissions were established in England and other places.

Canada is an officially bilingual country, and our legislation reflects that reality. The Official Languages Act guarantees all Canadians the right to receive government services in the official language of their choice, whether they are francophone or anglophone. What’s more, under the Language Skills Act, certain positions in the federal public service must be filled by individuals who are capable of working in both official languages. The bill we are debating contains no such provision. It is imperative that this commission be accessible and sensitive to Canada’s cultural and linguistic realities. That means that a sufficient number of commissioners must be bilingual, not only to guarantee fairness and transparency, but also to respect the language rights of all citizens.

The Barreau du Québec shared with the committee its concern that individuals who will have their cases reviewed by the commission will not receive adequate representation in their language if the commissioners do not speak both French and English.

In my practice of law in Nova Scotia’s Acadian communities and during my three years as a member of the National Parole Board of Canada, I saw many clients accused of crimes or inmates appearing before the board, and I could tell how important it was for them to be clearly understood in their mother tongue. Many times, the judges or Parole Board members failed to grasp the subtleties inherent to the language and culture of Nova Scotia Acadians.

I feel it is imperative that francophones and anglophones everywhere in Canada be able to appear before the commission and be understood by its members as they speak in their own language. Bilingualism is not only a Canadian value, but a legal obligation enshrined in law, because the Official Languages Act guarantees francophones and anglophones fair and equal access to federal institutions. By requiring some of the commissioners to be bilingual, we will not only ensure that francophones and anglophones have fair and equal access to justice, we will also send a message of inclusion and respect for the diversity of Canada’s two official language communities.

Once again, as I said about Bill C-20, just including a reference to the Official Languages Act in the criteria for appointing commissioners will in no way guarantee that the commissioners will be bilingual, because they will be appointed at the discretion of the Minister of Justice. However, it would serve as a reminder to everyone to recognize that our two official languages are important when appointing commissioners. It would have been simple and appropriate to add this reference to the law.

To emphasize the importance of complying with this provision, our colleague Senator Prosper and I proposed an observation in committee calling on the government to ensure that BIPOC communities are represented on the commission and that the commission accommodates Indigenous languages. We are also calling on the government to respect the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act by appointing some commissioners who can speak and understand both of Canada’s official languages fluently.

Bill C-40 is an important step forward for justice in Canada. The criticisms raised by many witnesses should be incorporated into the legislation as constructive elements to strengthen it when it is reviewed in five years, since all of the witnesses urged us to pass the bill as it currently stands. Also, many falsely imprisoned people are anxiously awaiting this legislation.

Honourable senators, lawyer James Lockyer, who worked closely on the cases of Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard, appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with Joyce Milgaard in 2000. In his testimony, he called on legislators to create such a commission. When he appeared before our committee on October 30 of this year, 24 years later, he said, and I quote:

For now, let’s bring the commission into being. In my opinion, it will be the most significant change in our criminal justice system since the coming of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1984. An election may or may not be coming soon, we don’t know, but I know that if Bill C-40 doesn’t get enacted in this Parliament, it will be another 24 years before I’m back here once more urging that a Bill C-40 equivalent be passed.

Let’s deliver justice to the falsely imprisoned. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, I have a question.

Senator Moncion has a question. Would you take a question, Senator Aucoin?

Of course.

Thank you. If I understood you correctly, Senator Aucoin, you’re saying that francophones will have to give up their rights once again, because we’re being asked not to make changes to this bill. It’s important that a commission be put in place as quickly as possible, so once again, we’re ignoring the fact that it would be good to have people who speak French or who are bilingual as part of this commission. That hasn’t been included in the law, but we shouldn’t make any changes, because we need this to pass? Have I understood you correctly?

Thank you for the question. You did understand correctly. That is the case. That’s why we proposed an observation. I accept the testimony of the many people who were falsely imprisoned, including the women, Indigenous people and Black people who appeared before the committee and urged us to pass the bill immediately because it can be amended later or improved when it comes up for review in five years.

Thank you for explaining that. You would probably agree that, if there was already a provision to that effect in the bill, we would not have to wait five years to incorporate that recognition of rights, and our rights would be recognized from day one.

I obviously wouldn’t be here talking to you about this if it was already in the bill. I’m trying to tell the government to put it in the bill. Once again, I have to trust that the government will read and heed the observation and appoint bilingual commissioners and staff. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-40. I won’t speak in detail about the bill itself. Others have done that, including Senator Arnot, and I am sure others will after me.

It is my intention to speak, hopefully in human terms, about the great need for this bill, to celebrate the work of many who have brought us to this point and to urge your adoption of the bill, a good but imperfect bill. It will improve the justice system, make it fairer and honour those who have worked so hard to bring us to this point.

This bill does not lend itself to levity. It deals with some profoundly important and tragic events and tries to improve the ways in which we address the tragedy of wrongful convictions. I will limit myself to one hopefully slightly humorous observation to try to make a particular point.

To begin with the great need for the bill, it has long been known that some people, innocent of crimes, accept the consequences of guilt to avoid more serious punishments. We have heard that some people feel a sense of responsibility for circumstances that were not their fault and have admitted to guilt when they should not have done so.

We have heard circumstances where the police have colluded to build an unjust case against an innocent person. Such was the case with Donald Marshall Jr.

Mostly, wrongful convictions arise because of a confluence of very unfortunate circumstances, often combined with witnesses who lie and the trier of fact — a judge or jury — being unable to distinguish between truth and falsehoods.

Based on the many reviews undertaken with respect to the David Milgaard case, and I have read them all, this was largely the story of Mr. Milgaard’s wrongful conviction, combined, in my view, with the tunnel vision of the police and inappropriate rulings on the evidence by the trial judge, unfair to Mr. Milgaard.

I want to zero in for a minute on the truth and falsehood point, that is the believability of witness testimony. Most cases in the criminal law turn on the trier of facts’ acceptance of testimony of one or other witnesses and the non-acceptance of the testimony of others. Sometimes, judges are not culturally equipped to interpret witness testimony very well. I once defended an Indigenous man in a criminal trial, someone who was probably innocent. He had an explanation for the circumstances, but the judge chose not to believe him because, as the judge explained, “When I asked the questions that I put to him, he wouldn’t look me in the eye.”

In the man’s culture, blocking one’s gaze with an authority figure was a sign of respect, so he looked down when he provided his answers. His show of respect got him convicted.

But here’s the overall truth of the matter: None of us, including judges, despite what we might think, are very good at distinguishing truth from untruth.

A good friend of mine, an outstanding criminal defence lawyer in Nova Scotia and subsequently a very fine judge, used to say cynically but with a grain of truth that most cases were decided on a balance of perjury; that is, whose lies were better.

Over 30 years ago, I attended a conference in Victoria, B.C., for judges across Western Canada. One of the organizers of the conference was Judge Arnot, as he then was. It was a fabulous conference on a wide variety of topics. One of them was the question of identifying truth from untruth as part of a judge’s tool kit. We did simulations. It turns out that none of us were very good at identifying sophisticated lying from truth-telling. We did our best, as judges tend to do, but we are all human, and on this topic, mistakes are easily made. Research shows that almost no one is consistently good at distinguishing truth from untruth. It’s not surprising, therefore, that we can assume that a substantial number of people residing in our jails today were, sadly, wrongly convicted because, with the best faith in the world, the decision maker got it wrong.

The number of wrongfully convicted, for all these reasons, is surely vastly higher than the 30 or so people who have had their convictions successfully reviewed over the last few decades in Canada.

This bill, even with its imperfections, will facilitate the opportunity for many more people to have their claims of having been wrongfully convicted reviewed in a more timely way with a truly independent decision maker using a somewhat less rigorous test for review.

I turn next to my own personal association with this issue of wrongful convictions. Senator Arnot spoke kindly about my involvement in David Milgaard’s case. I had not intended to discuss it in detail, but I will share a bit.

I was appointed as Deputy Attorney General of Saskatchewan in August of 1992. By that time, Mr. Milgaard’s conviction had been set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the decision had been taken by the prosecutors of Saskatchewan not to retry Mr. Milgaard. This left Mr. Milgaard in a state of suspended animation — in limbo if you like — whereby his conviction had been set aside, but his name had not been cleared.

In fact, in interviews, the Minister of Justice at the time — a good man — stated publicly that, in his personal opinion, he thought David Milgaard was guilty.

I started work on August 9, 1992. On my very first day on the job, I received a phone call from a highly respected lawyer who, if I may say, was a member of the so-called “union of lawyers for the wrongfully convicted.” I had had a small background role in Nova Scotia in the 1980s, assisting the lawyers working to exonerate Donald Marshall Jr., and I believe the lawyer’s awareness of this motivated her call.

She called and urged me to take a serious new look at Mr. Milgaard’s case. Shortly after that, Joyce Milgaard, through lawyers Hirsch Walsh and David Asper, advanced claims of wrongdoing in David Milgaard’s case directly to me — 69 allegations in all.

I reviewed those claims of wrongdoing and, after a sleepless night — the only completely sleepless night I have ever had in my life — I informed the Minister of Justice that I would be initiating a review to examine these claims of wrongdoing.

Let me emphasize the word “informed.” This was the first of two what I would call honourable decisions that I made with respect to Mr. Milgaard’s case. It was critical that I not be taking advice from a minister on this question but making the decisions as the permanent head of the justice department.

This is so, particularly, because one of the allegations advanced by Mrs. Milgaard was wrongdoing by the Premier of Saskatchewan in his former role as Attorney General during the time when Mr. Milgaard was prosecuted for Gail Miller’s murder.

To the credit of the justice minister and the premier, no one ever tried to influence me or interfere with that decision. The premier himself submitted to police interviews regarding a fairly incredulous allegation against him.

I retained the then Deputy Attorney General of Alberta and a senior and well-respected Crown prosecutor from Alberta to conduct the review. The review lasted 14 months and involved 14 full-time police officers. They reviewed all 69 allegations of misconduct in relation to Mr. Milgaard’s case.

I read all of the initial material related to the case and the 250‑page review report. On balance, nothing identified in the review moved the needle very much regarding the guilt or innocence of David Milgaard.

Now I come to the second important decision I made in relation to the matter. In my capacity as Deputy Attorney General, I had decision-making authority with respect to the physical evidence related to David’s trial. Indeed, it was still in, if I may call it, “our possession.” This was, in particular, Gail Miller’s clothing, which was believed to contain a small amount of very much degraded physical evidence, most likely the ejaculate secreted by the person who raped and killed her. We were now 25 years away from the time of the murder, and the general belief was in the very high likelihood — estimated at over 80% — that the physical evidence was too badly degraded to produce any positive DNA results. I was advised strongly not to have the material tested and perhaps to just throw it away.

I resisted those arguments. In conjunction with the lawyers for Mr. Milgaard, I authorized the material to be tested in a highly reputable third-party laboratory. It turns out there was plenty of material to produce a positive DNA test — thankfully — a DNA result that pointed unequivocally at Larry Fisher. Absent the ability to have that material tested for the perpetrators, Larry Fisher would never have been convicted of Gail Miller’s murder, justice would not have been done for her and David Milgaard would have been left under a cloud, in a state of legal suspended animation, for the rest of his life. He would never have been fairly compensated or as fairly as it is possible to do so in these tragic circumstances. And, more to the point today, he never would have been able to make the contribution to justice in this country that is captured in the substance of Bill C-40.

I made the right decision in that case. Senator Arnot has kindly suggested that it was honourable and perhaps heroic. I don’t think of it that way. I made the right decision, and it made possible the righting of a grievous wrong. It was my job.

I want to turn now, and nearly last, to the true heroes of this story. To do so, I will take the liberty for the first and only time here in this place of quoting myself. These are the remarks I made at the beginning of the consideration of this bill by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

For years, before coming to this place, I taught a law school course in legal ethics. Each day I tried to share with students the story about a lawyer. My favourite occasion was to talk about lawyers who had toiled, and often in anonymity —

— and often for no pay —

— on behalf of clients seeking to overturn wrongful convictions. They are, in my opinion, heroes. I’m thinking of lawyers such as Clayton Ruby, Archie Kaiser, Felix Cacchione, Steven Aronson, Anne Derrick and others who worked on behalf of Donald Marshall Jr. on his case.

Closer to home, in Saskatchewan with respect to David Milgaard, I’m reminded of Hersh Wolch — no longer with us — and David Asper, who wrote his experience representing Mr. Milgaard in a book entitled In Search of the Ethical Lawyer, which offers essays on the practice of law and ethics.

More significantly and more relevant to our discussion today, a number of those people wrongly convicted by our justice system, but particularly Mr. Milgaard and Mr. Marshall, despite having sacrificed so much of their life to wrongful convictions, set aside bitterness, I am sure, and committed their lives to making the justice system better for others.

Mr. Milgaard spoke once at our law school at the University of Saskatchewan some years ago to a jam-packed audience of students and lawyers, describing his experience and his commitment. He received the largest, loudest and longest standing ovation I have ever heard or seen at a Canadian law school — a small token of gratitude for his immense contribution. In that one hour, I believe Mr. Milgaard inspired more students to pursue justice with integrity than I did in 30 years of teaching. His legacy, along with the work of those remarkable lawyers, reminds us of the deep responsibility we carry as we examine this bill and its impact on our justice system.

I’m near the end now. During the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee meetings on the bill, we heard two sets of testimony that I want to observe upon. One was the evidence of James Lockyer, who was referred to a bit earlier, the dean of lawyers for the wrongfully convicted and a long-standing legal hero in the pursuit of justice for so many of the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. Lockyer, who has supported and urged the establishment of an independent commission for over 20 years, acknowledged that the bill could be better, but we are at a moment in time when we should pass the bill in its unamended form as soon as possible. I take that message seriously to heart, and I hope you will too.

We heard from a panel of three people who have been wrongfully convicted and who had their convictions set aside: Guy Paul Morin, Clarence Woodhouse and Brian Anderson. Their testimony was incredibly moving. Many in attendance, including senators — maybe even the chair — were moved to tears hearing their accounts.

There are a few moments in this place that a person will remember for a lifetime. One of them was Senator Adler’s maiden speech recently. Another was that morning in our committee.

This bill and its informal title honour Joyce and David Milgaard. It is right and just that it does. But I want you to think about a number of others, unknown to you and unknown to me, who have lost large portions of their lives to wrongful convictions. We don’t know who they are. We will never know who they are, and we will not be able to ever address the injustice that they have suffered. But passing this bill honours their anonymous voices, even if it only enables us to address tomorrow’s wrongfully convicted.

As Martin Luther King said — and I think it applies here — the long arc of history bends toward justice. This bill helps bend that arc in our country for the sake of justice for tomorrow’s David Milgaards and Donald Marshall Juniors. Colleagues, we are on the cusp of a great day for justice in this country, and I’m honoured to be a small part of it. I hope you are too. Thank you.