Wrongful Convictions in a Reconciliation World

Federal Justice Minister David Lametti discusses the Joyce and David Milgaard Act, which would create Canada's first independent commission to review wrongful convictions. Milgaard's lawyer David Asper offers his take on Lametti's efforts.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Oh my gosh, Dan, you're back.How was your big trip to the United Kingdom?

(00:05):
Fine.
Okay.
I know you traveled all over the UK, saw some family, even got to see a Liverpool football game. That must have been exciting.
Yeah, it was okay.
Really? Just okay?Adam, is it me or does Dan seem, I don't know what the word is, miffed?
Yeah.

(00:26):
Yeah, I'm getting a miffed vibe.
I think he's miffed.
Dan, like, what's up, buddy? What's got you so, like, miffed?
Okay.
You know, I promise I wouldn't get into this, but I'm a bit miffed about the guest host you had while I was away.
Julius Simone Rutgers?
I thought she did a great job.
She filled in for you.
She was funny.

(00:46):
She was smart.
And that was the problem.She was perfect. I mean, she's not only a great journalist, she's also a musician, and a visual artist, and a poet, and she even knows how to ride a bloody horse. And I believe her exact quote was, I think I'm a way better Lone Ranger than Dan.
Dan, that was just part of a funny bit that we did at the start.I'm sure she didn't really mean that.

(01:10):
Oh, no?When I listened to the podcast, it made me feel, I don't know, dispensable. It's sort of like being in a band and having someone sit in for you on a gig because you're away and the band goes out and gets Mick Jagger.
Come on, man.
I mean, Dan, you're still the Lone Ranger to me.
People can fill in for you, but nobody can replace you.

(01:31):
But given that we had such a great response to the episode with Julius Simone, I do have one piece of advice.
No, what's that?
I would never go on holiday again.
Ever.
The Winnipeg Free Press proudly presents, in partnership with CJNU 93.7 FM, Niigaan and the Lone Ranger. Here are your hosts, Niigan Sinclair and Dan the Lone Ranger Let.

(02:08):
And yes, yes, I'm back.
I'm back in my seat.
Welcome back.
You are loved.
You are loved.
You are loved.
I am.
And you know what?
Julius Simone, she was great, as a matter of fact, it's actually comforting to knowthat it should either one of us suffer a mishap on the way to the studio or have to leave the country as we both do.

(02:31):
That there we have we have tons of bench strength at the Free Press, although I do want to set the record straight.
Oh, oh, dear.
This is he's been talking to me all week about this.
Yeah, we are.
OK, so, you know, Julius Simone, who's originally from Calgary and she she played up her her cred her Calgary Calgary cred, which is totally authentic, you know, familiar with horses,familiar with the Calgary Stampede.

(02:57):
I worked for five months for the Calgary Herald, covered the Stampede.OK, and all of its glory. And I do know my way around a horse. I can ride a horse. So I just want to get that out of the way.
I'm so glad that the record has been corrected.
And of this, we shall never speak of again.
I'm so glad.
I want to test this horse theory one day.

(03:19):
Sure.
We're going to we're going to test you to see if you can find your way around a barn.
Yeah.
Well, I know enough to know not to spend a lot of time around the back end of a horsefor a variety of different.
I don't know much about horses, but I did deliver lambs one summer and that's aboutas far me as I get.
OK, so I know enough about horses to know that's not the same thing at all.

(03:40):
No, it isn't the same thing at all.
But you know, it's I'm glad that you're back and we you know, you're back smack dab inthe middle of Manitoba politics here as we see the latest Angus Reid poll has just come out.
Yeah.
Premier approvals.
And I think the conservatives here in Manitoba expected a bump, as most governments do when there's a budget, especially a pre-election budget that's very friendly and full of a bunch of things that they're hoping to get support on.

(04:09):
And didn't quite happen that way.
No.
So the timing of the poll might be a little too tight to say that this is 100 percentcaptures the impact of the budget.
But they started two days last week, two days before the budget was delivered in Manitoba and then went for a week.

(04:30):
So they would have gone till Monday of this week.
So they they did capture all of last week and last weekend.
And her approval rating fell one point to 25 percent.
More importantly, 65 percent of those Manitobans polled disapprove of her performance, which is probably more a concern than the support number.

(04:57):
Because, you know, when it gets right down to it, like every leader of every party, onlylike, you know, if you have a third of the people in the province that like the job you're doing, those are your core supporters.
It's not actually a bad number.
But where you know, if that's all you've got, then you're in trouble because, I mean, noparty can win an election, a majority mandate in an election in Manitoba without drawing some non-traditional voters.

(05:23):
And that just doesn't seem to be happening.
And not in a two party system, which generally is Manitoba, not to downplay the liberals,of course.
But it's just more like having only 25 percent of support in the province in a two partysystem means the other party got a lot of support.
Yeah.
You know, it's, and particularly in Winnipeg, and this is going to make a nice dovetailto the other issue that we want to discuss today, which is, you know, the way the Manitoba government, the progressive conservative government has sort of boxed itself into a corner on the issue of supervised consumption sites for those people suffering from addictions.

(06:05):
You know, like the spread between NDP support and Tory support in Winnipeg is so profound, like it's edging towards a 30 point spread, which is unprecedented.
So you see in the budget efforts that the government has made to reintroduce themselves, reframe the relationship with people in Winnipeg, tons of tax cuts, tons of spending.

(06:32):
Really overwhelming.
I mean, it's quite surprising about the tax cuts.
I mean, even in a pre budget conservative government, you know, I guess I shouldn'tbe surprised when I see such tax cuts and checks sent out to people throughout the province.
It's just, it just seems like such a move after getting the health care dollars andmaking the argument to the feds that we're in dire need of money, suddenly tax cuts come in and money's being mailed out to Manitobans.

(07:03):
Yeah, I think the worst part about the budget, you know, and this is the the Tories, this will go down as the air quotes, historic, which was the word that Premier Stefanson and finance minister Cliff Cullins said a gazillion times.
That's a rough estimate, gazillion.
It could have been more or less.
And but you know, like it was every every sentence was peppered with historic.

(07:28):
And you know, the problem is that, you know, it's a completely like it's in in general, it's a fallacious way to frame, you know, because like if you spend $1 more than you spent the year before, you can call that a historic investment in XYZ service.
The fact is that, you know, whatever they're spending is really, I'm not sure.

(07:52):
And this is the problem.
I'm not sure anybody can spend enough money now to make up for all the damage that was done when they were spending like, you know, they were funding increases were well beyond below the inflation and the impact of population growth.
So you know what?
You know, I don't yeah, I don't think they really I don't think they bought any love in this.

(08:16):
And I think that probably what's happened is there's it's the bad stories as we've seen the stories that have come out, especially on the supervised consumption sites and the disastrous way that these I think generally, Manitobans have been seen, you know, tax cuts should be seen as highly something people like, you know, highly enjoyed by Manitobans, but generally has been negatively responded to.

(08:44):
But I mean, time will tell.
But there's some really good things in this budget.
There's money for payroll tax exemption.
There's the Community Economic Development Board.
There's you know, there's even a partnership with the Assembly Manitoba chiefs for lending options.
I mean, there's some really good things in this budget, things that have been a long time needed and coming.
But yet you haven't heard almost anything about that.

(09:06):
No, and it's you know, I like speaking of polling.
I mean, I would love to know what the internal government polling is telling them, because as we also saw last week and into this week, government starting to respond to things that I would not have expected them to respond to.
So we mentioned the issue of safe consumption sites for people suffering from addictions.

(09:33):
And so this has been for years and years and years, this has been the treatment option, the harm reduction option too far for this government.
They don't believe in providing a safe and clean place for people to use drugs, even though we're suffering through an overdose epidemic.

(09:54):
I mean, you know, literally, every day that goes by that we don't have a safe consumption option for people suffering from addictions, another person will die every single day, at least it's actually closer to 1.6 people dying every day.
And, you know, so, okay, so the Tories and their core supporters, they don't believe in this, they don't think it's an option.

(10:19):
And so for the most part, they've kind of ignored the issue.
We've tried to get government data on overdoses, they hid the data.
And then all of a sudden, this week, this week that we're recording this, something strange happened.
They blinked on the issue.
And so the first thing is the government submitted an op-ed, a commentary written by the minister of mental health, and she want, like, so this was, you know, her longer form argument about why, you know, the government doesn't support supervised consumption.

(10:56):
And you know, I mean, in it, it's like, it's amazing.
Like it's, like she talks about, you know, while this government believes in treatment, we don't believe in enabling people to take drugs.
Yeah, it was a total tone shift.
But they also introduced a piece of legislation that they claim opens the window to the creation of more safer supervised consumption sites.

(11:19):
We only have one in Winnipeg right now.
It's operated, it's a mobile one operated out of Van by an agency called Sunshine House.
They're doing courageous work on their own.
On their own, they went and got an exemption from the federal government to do this.
On their own, they've gone out and got money to support the service because the province won't support it.
So they introduced this legislation, they do the op ed.

(11:43):
So apart from the ins and outs of what this may or may not do for people suffering from addictions, they blinked.
Like that is a blink, that's a tell, that this is suddenly, they see this as an issue that's related to their lack of support in Winnipeg.
And I'm kind of astounded.
And I mean, we can only imagine, you know, just a few years ago, Brian Pallister getting that report on safe consumption sites and throwing it on the floor in the legislature.

(12:10):
I mean, now here we are talking about it.
But you know, the way that they've administratively set it up is they really don't have to worry about this unless they get reelected.
Yeah, that sound you hear right now is an enormous controversial can being kicked down the road to somewhere in mid 2024, when who knows me who may be in government in Manitoba.

(12:32):
So I mean, there's that the budget did appeal to certain communities.
Like one of the things that was the attempt by the government to get support from is the large, the very large urban young population.
So there's $65 million going towards post secondary institutions.
And they're capping tuition.

(12:53):
I mean, which government we talking about here?
Yeah, my head spinning.
Hold me.
And so, you know, the time will tell whether this budget does get support.
I mean, the polling data and when it was taken, maybe have indicated that only partially, there would be people who would have known about the budget during the polling.

(13:14):
But I still think that this government is in really a difficult position going forward.
We're only, you know, we're a summer away from where people's attention draws away from the news.
And people are starting to think more about their summer cottages.
And they're thinking about an election.
And then boom, you've only got a short amount of time, September, October, to gain people's attention.

(13:36):
Yeah.
I mean, I think we have to leave open the possibility that she may seek a writ of election earlier than October the third.
I think it is, you know, like the I think the for the Tories, there may be a feeling that they got the budget out.
I mean, man, every day is jam packed with announcements that come out of the budget.

(13:58):
So today, you know, support for seniors, you know, treatment for people suffering from addictions, mental health supports, physician recruitment.
I mean, like it's there may be a feeling that it's better to leave these promises hanging in the air than leave it longer when you know, the heads in the news media like me go out and find out that nothing like that what they promise they're either not doing or it's been ineffectual.

(14:28):
I mean, reporters are so horrible.
We'd like to apologize to all reporters for Dan lumping you all in with him.
Yeah.
You know, at one level or another, political reporters all seek to be kind of a d***head.
Right.
Like it's like this is now turning into a like a motto.
Well, we all want to be respected.
But you know, if you're disliked, I mean, I suppose that's kind of a good thing.

(14:54):
You know, like it's I have a I have a friend of mine who works in politics who says journalists should judge the their influence, their impact, not on the basis of the friends they make, but on the basis of the enemies that they make.
So in that case, I am like the best journalist ever.
I think well, I'm always shocked by the number of contacts that you have in all parties across the province, which tells me that you're able to walk that line and in the middle at many ways to both keep those relationships, but then also at times just speak the truth.

(15:30):
Yeah.
I mean, you know, I know you have to be careful.
I don't want this exactly to come across like some of my best friends are.
But you know what?
Like it's if you do your job properly and we have so many great journalists at the Free Press, then you have you have agency with somebody in every party, like someone who will pick up the phone and tell you what's going on.

(15:50):
Even if parenthetically, he slips in his disappointment about the premier continuing to ignore the request to appear on this podcast, close parentheses.
But yeah, like, you know, it's it's a fascinating time in Manitoba politics.
I will say this point that if the conservatives, Progressive Conservatives go on to lose this election, it will not be because Heather Stefanson did not try everything like I will.

(16:18):
Throw in everything right now.
Yeah.
And so I will give her a lot of credit.
You know, if she she started with more political capital and a clean slate, who knows kind of where we would be right now?
The long specter of Brian Pallister.
And if you watch the the strategy of the NDP and almost every single speech of Wab Kinew, I mean, he evokes Brian Pallister's name as much, if not more so than Heather Stefanson. You actually won't hear Heather Stefanson's name.

(16:50):
You'll hear premier and then you'll hear Brian Pallister over and over and over again, because it's a winning strategy.
I think generally that people feel very disfavorable.
He left very, very disfavorably.
And I think people look at the health care system and they see Brian Pallister, they don't see Heather Stefanson.
And among progressive conservatives, Mr. Pallister has achieved full Voldemort status.

(17:14):
He is the name.
I don't think he's around to hear or listen to our podcast anymore.
No.
Although when I'm going to get that global map, like of where people are listening, and I'm going to look for that little dot in Costa Rica.
If there's a couple of dots in Costa Rica, then I would be shocked.
I would be shocked.
We're going to shift gears a little bit to a topic that's kind of very close to my heart, wrongful convictions. I kind of, as an investigative journalist, I kind of cut my teeth on wrongful convictions. David Milgaard worked on that story quite a bit and then also James Driscoll and others. And recently the federal government introduced legislation called the Joyce and David Milgaard Act which seeks to create an independent commission finally to review cases of possible wrongful conviction.

(18:10):
And after it was introduced about a week and a half ago, I reached out to Office of Federal Justice Minister David Lametti and he was good enough to agree to join us for conversation.
So we're going to have that conversation and then we're going to debrief on that interview with Winnipeg lawyer David Asper.

(18:31):
My colleague at the University of Manitoba and the Robson Faculty of Law.
And the man who first approached me back in the late 80s to ask me if I wanted to go to Stony Mountain Penitentiary and meet his client David Milgaard and talk about it.
Most known about the advocacy on David Milgaard's legal team.
I mean real icon in Manitoba legal circles.

(18:54):
And so we're really lucky to be able to debrief a little bit on the interview with David Lametti on with David Asper.
Absolutely and so here we go off to our interview with the federal justice minister David Lametti.
I am lucky today to be joined by David Lametti who is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada and is also the author with I'm sure many other people in this department of a new piece of legislation for the creation of an independent commission to review cases of possible wrongful conviction.

(19:34):
And Minister Lametti thank you very much for joining us today.
It's a pleasure to be here Dan.
Thank you.
As we were discussing just briefly before we started the recording myself in particular in the Winnipeg Free Press have a really deep connection to the stories of wrongful conviction.

(19:54):
We were among the first news organizations to report on the David Milgaard case.
We also got quite a bit of attention for the work we did in the James Driscoll case.
So I can sort of say with you know no exaggeration that right off the bat I'm extremely pleased at you know at first look and excited about the possibility of independent commission because it's correct me if I'm wrong this has really been like a thing that's decades in the making.

(20:30):
Oh absolutely it's I believe that every single or at least the vast majority of independent ex post facto reviews commission reviews and that sort of thing have recommended a review mechanism that was independent of the Minister of Justice.
And so this is long overdue and I'm pleased to be the one pushing it forward.

(20:56):
So again I'm sure this was tucked into just about every briefing book that you ever received on potential legislation and policy priorities but what's the origin story for you?
How did you decide to make it a priority because it has been and again I don't think this is an exaggeration or unfair it's been an easily punted policy issue.

(21:22):
There's a lot of cans that have been kicked down a lot of roads on this one.
What's the origin story for you? How did you come to sort of take this on?
Well I think you're bang on first of all that it has been a can that's been kicked down the road far too many times.
And I actually thought to get this in my mandate letter in 2019 and I thought to get it in my mandate letter in 2021.

(21:49):
It wasn't in our party platform.
So it's something that has been of great personal interest to me and I guess it's a bit in my legal DNA.
As an undergraduate I followed, I mean I obviously learned about Stephen Truscott in school but then I followed what happened with David Milgaard and Gipal Moran and others.

(22:16):
By the time I got to law school it was an issue and you know Erwin Kotler was the professor taught me constitutional law and when I got named a justice minister Erwin took me aside in his usual fashion with his 15 points and one of them was David you've got to get this done.
But the other and probably the most personal point of contact for me is that I clerked for Peter Corey at the Supreme Court of Canada.

(22:42):
Peter wrote the report of the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophono and he recommended a an independent commission to review these kinds of potential miscarriages of justice and I remember I'd long since stopped clerking for him but we stayed in touch and he did the report and I remember he handed me the report personally and he said David this is important and so I took that I take all of that baggage with me as you know a former professor and you know again a student and colleague of Erwin Kotler but most of all a mentee of Peter Corey and this had to be done.

(23:27):
It's long overdue.
When I became minister there was a case sitting on my desk and I got to it I think expeditiously and I've tried to do it expeditiously in the five cases that have come before me in the last four and a half years.
But two things you've got to note as justice minister first of all I look at the files and say wow how did it take so long to get to my desk and secondly why only five cases in four and a half years like there have to be so many more examples of this out there there has to be a better way.

(24:03):
So the law has been I guess unofficially I believe it's unofficially dubbed the Joyce and David Milgaard law and officially okay there officially and the bill in any event we'll see what the law will happen with the law later but the bill is definitely the Joyce and David Milgaard bill.

(24:24):
That is an observation I would expect the attorney general to make in our conversation so well played.
I was fortunate enough to know both of them quite well and to have grieved their passing David's you know just within the last year.
Did they play a direct role either one of them before they passed in informing you or motivating you to introduce this bill?

(24:55):
David definitely did obviously I became minister after Joyce's passing but certainly regard her as a hero in all of this you know as someone who just continually went to bat for her son and refused to take no for an answer and refused or rebutted anybody who felt that he was guilty and so thankfully for her David was released.

(25:22):
I met David in 2019 shortly after having been named minister of justice with James Lockyear they came up to my office and again how could you not be impressed by someone who after having spent over two decades in prison for something he didn't do who turned his efforts to helping other people and fixing this problem and so it was hard not to be I suppose emotionally convinced by David very persuasive.

(25:56):
I promised them that day that I would get this done and so far I'm keeping the promise it has to be done step by step because we're creating something new and I'm happy to go into the steps later with the commission that justices Laforment and Moesmore and Traure did for us but I promised David and I cried when he died like I still get emotional I wish he had been here for this and I'm glad that Susan could join us and with James Lockyear the day that we made the announcement.

(26:34):
Susan being Susan Milgaard who has done just as much work as anybody in the Milgaard family really to keep the fires on this issue burning.
You know again over the years and all the writing that I've done on Royal Club Convictions it's been quite clear to me that none of your predecessors and by that I mean justice ministers and attorneys general have seen the political margin or value in engaging on this topic because it is a it's a thorny issue when you get into discussions with the provincial attorneys general you know they ultimately are the authors of the wrongful prosecutions if that happens to be the issue you know they're responsible for policing in their jurisdictions and the role the police play in this and quite frankly I think human nature being what it is they don't like to have these things pointed out and they take you know the the provincial attorney general tend to be very adversarial what discussions have you had with the provinces about this and are they do they remain concerned to perhaps adversarial about what you're trying to do.

(27:54):
I'm I know I'm not I don't think so and maybe it's maybe it's because it's just taken so much time and maybe it's because we've seen so many cases and we continue to see cases it's just and I've tried to not certainly cast blame anywhere mistakes happen you know whether it's you know whether it's a police investigation that works works to a hypothesis that you know perhaps actually ended up framing the the investigation in a way that it shouldn't have or whether it's a coroner's report that did the same thing or whether it was a crown or whether it was a it was a you know a mistake on the bench or something like that it doesn't matter it really doesn't matter how how we got there and I've tried not to cast blame the the advantage I guess of the the political with a small p advantage of of the the form trial right westmoreland trial report was that everybody could read it and and so we did after that after we got that report we did go back to provinces and territories we did we did get submissions from police association judges associations and as well to get their views on it and so the the report helped us in that dialogue with them to come up with you know I think with a bill that I think has to be honest broad support and so I'm not sensing I'm not sensing resistance and I'm certainly not seeing any advert you know any adversarial or outright hostility towards this I think there's a general view that we've had far too many of these cases in in Canadian history they continue to happen and we must do something so it's I think it's a fair observation that the the system that we've had to date which is the the powers of the minister to review convictions after normal avenues of of appeal have been exhausted isn't contained within the criminal code there is a there is a department within your department the convictions review group that does a lot of the spade work but that the the culture around the issue of of wrongful convictions has been perhaps the biggest problem and and again you know I'll put some some blame on the on the provinces for this essentially it has been by tradition the provincial prosecution services have become an adversarial party to the wrongful conviction they in many ways trying to try or retry the cases and you know I've personally written about recent cases involving people like Devin Ross where you know that it took more than a decade to work through your office and one of the big reasons was the constant opposition and and obstruction not maybe in the legal sense but in a more of a metaphorical sense of the provincial prosecution services do you believe that along with the commission we need a culture reboot on this something that maybe where we can convince the provinces to be a little more interested in in in a fair and objective review of the cases and a little less automatically hackles up defending the original conviction well I that's a delicate question obviously and I would like obviously to bring everybody with us on this including the provinces and territories including police and crowns and and and judges associations and again I my goal here not to cast dispersions but you're you're right to say it takes too much time you're absolutely right to say it takes too much time part of it is I think just the fact that and and the criminal cases review group in in my ministry I know they work hard and

(32:04):
I and I know that they take all this seriously but they have other jobs too and and so one of the things that an independent commission will do is just have more resources and this will be the primary and and really only focus of that of that body and that's critically important I think that will greatly enhance the speed at which at which this might move through the system and that will help people but they'll also be able to move proactively and and move in communities to make sure that people are aware and we can we can we can jump more into this if you want to make sure that people are aware that that this possibility exists but honestly I haven't seen prosecutors do their job ground prosecutors do their job

(32:53):
defense defense lawyers do their job I haven't seen bad faith here but I'm I am definitely going to say that you're right to say this just takes way too much time and that's certainly one of the things that motivates me so the issue of resources I think that like I did
talk to Susan and Dave and James Locke here after you announced the the bill and and I certainly think the issue of resources is top of mind for all the people who have fought for those shown to be wrongly convicted we don't you don't have a budget yet and and

(33:31):
there aren't a lot of details on how support can flow and in what form you know I know that a lot of people who do work in this area are hoping that it's not you don't try to to run through provincial legal aid schemes which have been very problematic so maybe

(33:51):
let's talk about how quickly do you think that the the bill can be passed we're in kind of a dynamic political environment right now and and and and then how quickly can we start to see some some details about resources

(34:13):
well first just on passage I'm pretty confident we can get this thing through the House of Commons expeditiously hoping you know quite frankly hoping by June the I've got support from the NDP pretty sure I have support from the Bloc Québécois Daniel Terp is someone when he was in when he was in the House of Commons with the Bloc Québécois who was in favor of this kind of commission and I I honestly I honestly hope I can get the Conservative Party as well to to join in or at least at least a substantial plurality nobody nobody has any interest in wanting to keep innocent people in jail I mean what that doesn't do that that doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever

(34:56):
except to delegitimize the the criminal justice system as well as create unnecessary victims and prolong the agony of victims of crime so we we will I think we can get this through by June I think there's good support in terms of the resources that's my job to get those resources from the Minister of Finance and I'm doing everything that I can as we speak to try to make sure that that happens and I I take the point from from Susan and from

(35:28):
James and from others I can't roach others that this that this absolutely has to has to be properly re-resourced and I'm doing my best to make sure that that happens.
So it's likely let's let's assume that this can get through by June which would be the the spring session spring to summer session of of the federal legislature and then there would be a break so probably at earliest we wouldn't see details about resources until the the budget following the one that we're going to see later this month.

(36:09):
I'm not certain because in addition to budget processes there are cycle requests and that sort of thing so I can't can't can't can't assume I guess that it will be in the current budget but also can't can't rule it out but also can't rule out that there are other possibilities down the road.

(36:31):
Getting it up and running will still take some time there's absolutely no question about that.
I ring processes are what they are and and putting together the architecture of it and
filling in the architecture of it if you will and and and getting there's also the the actual
submission and then has to go through Treasury Board all that stuff but I'm I'm hoping to
be able to press and and get this thing done as soon as possible.

(36:55):
So my next question I will admit is like it's it it it touches on some pretty big sort of
issues but I'm wondering as well one of the the pressure points or or concerns about the
current system has been around references from your office for reviews by appellate

(37:23):
courts and then the the work that the appellate courts do and I'm just wondering if you think
to a certain extent the the entirety of the justice system but certainly those who will
be working hand in hand with this new commission to review that we we might need to brush up

(37:43):
a little bit on the jurisprudence in this area creating more of a standard reference
like a format for a reference from this commission to an appellate court.
It seems that and as somebody who painstakingly follows all of the references and all the
work by the appellate courts it seems like we have to reinvent the reference and the

(38:08):
context for these reviews because they're right now it's an extraordinary event you
know it may be less extraordinary in the future do do we need to kind of brush up maybe yeah
just do we need to all go back to school a little bit and and sort of get a common understanding
of how these things should be handled.
Well I think I think we will necessarily have to I think we'll necessarily have to go back

(38:32):
to school first of all because we were changing we're proposing to change the legal standard
in this bill from you know likely miscarriage of justice to potential miscarriage of justice
we have the language may and and and with an additional element of of public interest
which is which is in other jurisdictions that we've seen that have successfully employed

(38:56):
models so in the UK Australia New Zealand and we have a bit of a hybrid standard but
we've lowered that standard it's something that that justices leforme and trarer asked
us to do and we think that was a good thing to do so to some extent that puts us all back
in school and in terms of how we look at the the way in which this law operates but it's

(39:19):
also true that there will be more cases there necessarily have to be more cases that's one
of the reasons why we're doing it and so there will become I believe a greater sense of ease
their comfort with the fact that this commission will be able to refer cases back not just
the court of appeal but they could also the current power they'll have all the current
powers that I have and which I'm giving up they can also refer it back to a trial court

(39:44):
for a new hearing which again in some cases it's an option I have to admit when I'm looking
at it I'm trying to look at them in the most effective lens for the person who who is claiming
the wrongful conviction so I will choose the either route depending on what I feel will
be more expeditious in particular for the for the person bringing forth the the claim

(40:11):
the commission will develop its own rules of thumb its own standards and for for its
referrals and the courts will hopefully get used to the fact that these that this independent
body with its own with its own mandate and a great deal of credibility that it will that
it will begin to develop over time will be sending cases back and it will become part

(40:32):
of the new normal.
Yeah and I mean I think there's a lot of people who who do advocacy in this area that will
be very supportive of what you're describing I mean to a certain extent right now and and
I don't think that this this new commission in the new process and the new standards will
change that but you know there is there is a note of finality to this process when it's

(40:57):
referred you know to an appellate court there is no there is no process for for reviewing
that decision and I think that at least in a couple of instances you know Innocence Canada
would point out that you know they don't believe everybody's been on the on the same page and

(41:18):
and maybe not even the appellate courts haven't even grasped the fact that this is it this
is the last stage of deliberation nobody is going to review this decision.
The stakes are very high in this even with the improvements you're making the stakes
remain high don't they.
Oh absolutely particularly for the people who who have been wrongfully convicted sitting

(41:41):
in sitting in incarceration somewhere I mean of course the stakes are high but we need
we need to have a better system precisely so that we can deal with these cases more
effectively more quickly and more cheaply in a way that that makes them accessible makes
the process accessible.
That's another thing we haven't touched on yet but you know all the cases that come up

(42:04):
in front of me tend to be men convicted of homicide but if you look at incarceration
the the the faces of incarceration across Canada that's not it there are there are plenty
of women there are plenty of indigenous peoples there a majority of indigenous people sadly
tragically are a great plurality as well as as well as people of color black Canadians

(42:29):
other other racialized Canadians and they're being lost here it's something that Justices
Laform and Westmoreland Moreland Trowry pointed out and they they took specific care to include
those voices in their deliberations but it just stands as a matter of logic that if the
only cases that get to me represent only one tiny swath of the of the population one kind

(42:53):
of case that we're missing something somewhere else and we need we need better data I know
that but we also need a better system that allows for other people to challenge the the
convictions that that have been mistakenly entered or the processes that have gone awry
that have led to those convictions it's I think the the great hope of the people that

(43:19):
recommended this commission is that it would finally in Canada kind of get more as you
say to to capturing the magnitude of the problem of course the magnitude of the problem is
also one of the reasons why I think people fear this commission is because they they
quite frankly it's not clear to them yet where the commission will draw its lines in the

(43:44):
United Kingdom they were initially approached by people with fairly small and mundane legal
issues that were no doubt important to them is there's still a lot of parameters that
need to be worked out on this commission and and what cases like will it give equal time

(44:05):
and effort to the cases of people who are no longer incarcerated as those who are still
incarcerated like how do we figure out all that well I think the short answer is we're
going to let the commission figure a lot of that out on its own to work out their own
methodologies and and and their priorities certainly the the the walking orders I would

(44:28):
give them or the marching orders is probably the wrong term it's too strong but the walking
orders that I would give them is that we do want them to look at these other cases they've
had a they've had a massive negative impact on the lives of people it's not it's not a
conviction for homicide but it is a conviction that incarcerates you for five or six years
and on something else that has completely disrupted and possibly even destroyed a life

(44:52):
a relationship a job all of that and so that's important too and we need we need to be able
to look at those one of the positive examples as you've pointed out from the UK Scotland
is that is that the commissions have been able to look at these other cases and they
have been able to the numbers actually go up particularly at the outset then they stayed

(45:13):
below ice later which is I suppose what we would expect here but those those cases are
important too it's not just it's not just the major homicide obviously the major homicide
cases are are always going to be a priority but it's not simply those cases that we need
to review it's other cases and and again with technology changing the way it does it often

(45:33):
is the case that there is an exonerating technology that comes into existence five or six or seven
or ten years after the the conviction and we need to be able to to look at those kinds
of changes and apply them as quickly as possible.
So it's just as we sort of wrap up our our conversation it would be correct for me if

(45:55):
I was paying attention I think I have been paying attention that there your hope is to
see the the bill become law by the end of the current session which wraps up sometime
in June and then following that that you're hopeful that there could be some work done

(46:17):
to provide some resources to get the commission at least up and running it in the planning
and development stage shortly after that if everything were to go you know well.
You're correct on all counts.
Okay well it's yeah you can imagine how many times I hear that I not very often.

(46:40):
Minister I want to thank you and your people for being so responsive and making time to
talk about this you know it isn't often the biggest story in the country but it is actually
a huge story to those people that have been touched by this you know the narratives of

(47:00):
wrongful conviction so we are hopeful as well that you are successful in your mission here.
Well thank you I appreciate your work over the years and the work of other of other journalists
of Innocence Canada of all the lawyers and law students and others who have and families
who have not forgotten that mistakes can happen and so let's get this done I'm going to keep

(47:28):
pushing as hard and as long as I can until this gets done you have my word there and
I hope too that we will come back in hopefully not too long a period of time and do a victory
lap.
Well I'll use this as an opportunity to tell your people that I'm booking an interview
for July just kind of a progress report and we'll see where we are there the Honorable

(47:54):
David Lametti is the Minister of Justice for Canada and the Attorney General and thank
you for your time.
Thank you Dan.
We want to welcome to the Negon and Lone Ranger podcast my colleague from Robson Hall Faculty
of Law at the University of Manitoba David Asper.

(48:15):
Well known throughout Winnipeg he's been the chair of the Winnipeg Police Board, chair
of the Manitoba Police Commission and lawyer well known business person throughout the
province and particularly worked on David Milgaard's legal team that overturned his
wrongful conviction.
Welcome to the podcast David.
Thank you it's great to be here.

(48:38):
I want to start off by talking about your work on wrongful convictions and particularly
your work with we all know that the justice system in Manitoba has not been kind to Indigenous
peoples.
My father of course headed up the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry back in 1988 and the hundreds

(49:00):
of recommendations that came out of there.
In large part because of the wrongful convictions or the justice system that's pitted against
Indigenous peoples can you talk a little bit about your experience as a lawyer in Manitoba
and then also your work with wrongful convictions.
I grew up as a young lawyer standing in line behind your father in line in the courtrooms

(49:22):
because he was senior to me so I got to watch him and he was an incredible mentor before
he went to the bench and served as a judge and I enjoyed and I took God's strength from
watching the way he would speak truth to power in the courtroom and I have a lot of respect

(49:43):
for your dad.
I do want to start I mean we're recording this on March 16th 2023 in news breaks this
morning that two members of the Edmonton Police Service were shot and killed and it's just
a tremendous reminder of the risk and the importance of law enforcement in our communities

(50:06):
and the risk that these people take.
It has special meaning I guess for me even in the context of my own lived experience
that led into wrongful convictions because I wasn't practicing criminal law and I made
a career choice to change my career path into criminal law and the day I started March 6th

(50:32):
1986 two members of the RCMP were gunned down one was killed Corporal Rob Thomas in Powerview,
Tova, Rob had grown up as a special constable with Peguis First Nation Policing and then
graduated into the RCMP and I think he's buried at Peguis and so when we talk about wrongful

(50:53):
convictions and I know we'll do that I think it's important to keep you know the big picture
in mind that there are human beings and there's huge risk in the system and I encountered
that literally on my first day of work as a criminal defense lawyer and I think it's
appropriate today when we're recording to acknowledge and send condolences to the families

(51:17):
of the Edmonton officers, the slain Edmonton officers and to honour and respect the memory
of Corporal Rob Thomas, one of Manitoba's own who was killed in the line of duty and
so that was March 6th 1986 and then what a week that was my day one and my day three
was to meet Joyce Milgard and become involved with you know what would become one of Canada's

(51:44):
most notorious wrongful conviction cases and led to a new law which actually bears the
name of Joyce and David Milgard so life is pretty crazy sometimes.
And it's also I mean I think it would be impossible in Manitoba to not deal with these issues
particularly in relation to the rampant challenges that the justice system has placed over the

(52:09):
past and the issue of race and the issue of funding as well and we can't forget too that
while we do recognize the incredible work that police officers do there's also a number
of issues within the system that involve police officers, lawyers, judges that oftentimes
create these systems in which the wrong people get both accused, get positioned in particular

(52:37):
ways and then maybe can't always defend themselves appropriately and then end up in jail for
long periods of time and David Milgard certainly that falls into that category.
Well one of the other things that and one of the lifelong experiences that sticks with
me to this day was that as I grew into my practice in criminal law I spent a ton of

(53:01):
time on circuit in circuit courts in rural Manitoba and on reserve in Barron's River
and Pungasi and Bloodvane and Little Grand Rapids and the Interlake Hall of Water and
Fisher River and all the way west away and I saw things in the system that the new proposed

(53:22):
legislation and I participated in the consultation that led to the new legislation but I saw
what we call pleas of convenience which is the plea bargaining where people who might
be innocent of a crime take a plea bargain and plead guilty because it's the lesser

(53:43):
of two evils when they're trapped in the system and I could see this and I could see the wheel
of the pressure of the system happening in real time and it was very troublesome and
I'm very glad that part of the underlying rationale and part of the information that

(54:06):
was provided in the consultation that led to the new legislation allows for this new
independent commission to look into those kinds of situations which you know not surprisingly
mirror the disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system of racialized

(54:27):
people, first nations, indigenous, people of color who get trapped in the system and
may be sort of forced into situations where they admit to things that they didn't do.
Just for people who may not be as familiar with the concept, listeners who may not be

(54:50):
as familiar with the concept, the pleas of convenience.
And David you'll correct me if I'm wrong but at the very intake level of the justice
system it's not unusual to find someone accused of relatively mundane crimes.
So these wouldn't be the high profile violent crimes but could be property crime, break

(55:12):
and enter, even assault.
What will happen is the individual will be charged with a whole broad array of things.
I mean there could be like a dozen different charges that the police lay initially and
it's a lever.

(55:32):
It tips the scale because what it does is it forces defense lawyers to plea bargain
and pick one charge out of the big array of things, plead to a lesser sentence than they
might get if they go to trial with both Crown and defense realizing that there's no way
the justice system has the time to sort all this out.

(55:53):
Is that sort of a fair description of how the pleas of convenience work?
Hardly.
What you've described is what's sometimes known as overcharging.
So somebody breaks a window and they wind up charged with, you know, what they did was
actually a fairly minor offense in the criminal code but they get charged with, for example,

(56:16):
break, enter and theft which has a potential life sentence and is treated more seriously
and it may result in them, for example, being denied bail.
And so now they're in prison and waiting for a trial and the Crown attorney comes along
and says will you plead to mischief and let's make this thing go away.

(56:40):
And if the person didn't do it, you know, they might say okay, just because that'll
get me out of prison and get this over with, okay, let's do that.
So that's one scenario.
The other scenario is again sort of related which is when people are in fact charged with

(57:00):
very serious crimes like homicides and they're facing, for example, second-degree murder
charges and potential life imprisonment if they're convicted and potentially a long period
in pretrial detention.
Again they look at the sort of the utilitarian perspective which is a plea to manslaughter

(57:25):
better if that's on the table.
And even though manslaughter has a life sentence potentially, it doesn't have a mandatory minimum
and so there's a couple of variations of how pleas of convenience might work.
And I mean I've seen it.

(57:45):
As I say, I've seen it firsthand.
It's a difficult situation for the defense lawyer because you have to look at the accused
and you have to say okay, if you're pleading guilty, I can't plead guilty on your behalf
or speak on your behalf unless you're admitting to all the things that are required to uphold

(58:06):
a conviction.
And so clients who are separated from their community, separated from their families will
just look at you and say yeah, I get it and then you go ahead.
So you've had the benefit of listening to some of our interview with Minister Lometti

(58:26):
and I was able to bring him to a place to talk about some of the real systemic and cultural
issues in the justice system that lead to wrongful convictions.
Two-part question.
Number one is do you accept what appears to be at face value a pretty deep personal commitment

(58:47):
to this issue?
I mean politically it's not a winner.
There's never been a lot of political appetite to engage on the issue of wrongful convictions.
Minister Lometti seems to be, you know, he's staking part of his mandate as justice minister
to this issue.

(59:08):
And secondly, is this the right point, an independent commission, to change those systemic
and cultural issues or do we have more work to do beyond that?
I think that Mr. Lometti is a hero.
I honestly, you know full well that it's been 30 years since the Milgard case was resolved

(59:36):
or more.
I can't even remember how many years ago it was.
And as he said in his interview, there have been multiple commissions of inquiry and no
minister.
I guess everyone caughtler got close but no minister has had the resolve and the wherewithal
to actually see this through.

(59:56):
And so I give him immense credit for doing that.
And he understands this not at a political level.
It's clear that he understands it at an intellectual, cerebral policy and a systemic level.
And I think that's what enabled him to be able to do what he felt was the right thing.

(01:00:20):
And just in that vein, there was this, and he refers to the consultation that occurred
about a year before the actual legislation was presented.
And I participated in that consultation.
And there was interesting discussion about the scope of what an independent commission

(01:00:41):
might seek to do.
So in its simplest, most stripped down version, you look at the most serious crimes, homicides,
where people are incarcerated and try to deal with those cases.

(01:01:01):
But the consultation went way, way further to try to cover way broader ground, including
deeper systemic issues, including the race-based aspects of where the system has had a disproportionately
bad impact.

(01:01:25):
And to his credit, he's come up with a proposal that is really the full meal deal.
I think it's very ambitious.
We saw the experience in the UK when they created their independent commission that
it was initially overwhelmed.
And the minister refers to that.
He said, I think he referred to the fact that there were only five cases that crossed his

(01:01:48):
desk.
And everybody in the system knows that there has to be way more than what is actually coming
to light.
And so I do worry a little bit that there might be a lot of traffic that gets directed
toward that commission.
But I guess that's a good thing.
And if that happens, then I guess it's better to be trying to react to that than continue

(01:02:15):
to keep it suppressed.
So I, as I say, there have been a lot of ministers of justice that all advocates for an independent
commission have encountered along the way.
And I'm just extremely grateful that this minister finally did it.

(01:02:37):
You know, there are so many systemic issues.
I mean, certainly the way even the existing limited system tends to weed out claimants
of indigenous or non-white racialized groups, they just don't get an opportunity to participate

(01:02:59):
even in the current system.
But I also spent quite a bit of time talking to him about the cultural problem with the
provincial Crown prosecution services who treat these applications as if they are, you
know, that it's like a knife fight to the death.

(01:03:20):
They do not become a participant in seeking justice.
They become the adversary of the applicant.
And you know, you and I have talked about that a lot over the years.
Is an independent commission, do you think that's the right place to start to address
those issues?
It's a great question.
I can't give a definitive answer on that.

(01:03:44):
I do know though that the independent commission is going to have full powers of inquiry, including
compelability of witnesses and disclosure of documents.
So I think that with those teeth and with the stature of being a national institution

(01:04:06):
and with proper investigative resources, I think it's the end of the line of the political
gamesmanship in these kinds of cases.
Number one, just because of the powers conferred on the new independent commission.
The second thing that I do hope does start to change the culture is that a lot of reasons

(01:04:31):
why wrongful convictions happen are not intentional.
Some of the race issues, for example, come from unconscious bias.
And a friend of mine actually is doing some really interesting work on a case, a very
famous criminal law case from Ontario about unconscious bias and the sort of the, what

(01:04:54):
we call the ossification of facts in a case where they get ossified like a fossil in the
way that a predominantly white court of appeal describes what it sees as facts and how the
reality might be quite different.
And that's, I think, unconscious bias.

(01:05:16):
And hopefully the commission will start to, I guess, depoliticize or undemonize that aspect.
There's many other aspects to why wrongful convictions happen that get people on their
heels and get defensive.

(01:05:37):
Police don't like to be accused of participating in a wrongful conviction.
And yet at the same time, I've never met a police officer who wants to get the wrong
person.
And yet they, once they get into tunnel vision, which is a psychological trick sort of that

(01:05:58):
happens, it's extremely hard to break that spell.
And it becomes even harder when there's a demonization of them for having gone down
that rabbit hole.
And so maybe this commission can undemonize that.

(01:06:18):
Maybe when people give false confessions, to the average person, a false confession
is unfathomable about how it, you know, how could you possibly admit to something that
you didn't do?
And yet we know what happens.
And quite often, whoever gets the confession becomes demonized.

(01:06:43):
And so I do think that over time, the commission can change the culture.
And you know very well what happened in the Milgard case is we've got into this pitched
battle that was completely unnecessary if the Department of Justice, if there had been

(01:07:03):
some willing partner to uncover when we first raised the questions about the Milgard case
in an independent way, if somebody had actually looked into it, none of the demonization and
the fight that had to happen would have been necessary.
So I, maybe I'm naive.

(01:07:24):
I was very naive thinking that the Department of Justice was going to link arms with us
in the Milgard case and march off to achieve justice.
But I do think that this is a new opportunity and I do hope it changes the culture.
One hundred percent agree that when people's unconscious bias are pointed out, not just

(01:07:45):
in policing, but I think it happens almost everywhere, that when you point out someone's
unconscious bias, they'll double down often versus admitting or recognizing or, and this
is often where cultural awareness initiatives really fall apart because just bringing someone's
attention to racism doesn't actually deal with racism.

(01:08:07):
And the calls to action oftentimes say we need to be giving more training, more, but
one of the things that the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry did is really fundamental change,
like asking for very substantive change within the system itself, that the system, the idea
of punitiveness in the justice system, the idea of how do we railroad people through

(01:08:30):
the system, especially with public defenders, oftentimes is the reason for all of this racism
within the justice system.
And so if there's one thing that you could change or one thing you could employ today,
what would it be in the justice system to be able to, whether it be at any level, I
mean, I work with judges, I'm on a board that assists Justice Joyle with this Court of King's

(01:08:54):
bench here in Manitoba.
What is one thing that you could see at any level to be able to employ and engage the
issue of wrongful conviction?
I was going to give an address in David's honour to the National Judicial Institute,
which was having a session on wrongful convictions.
And unfortunately, I got COVID and I couldn't even collect my thoughts, so I wasn't able

(01:09:19):
to do it.
But what I was going to say to them, and I thought really carefully about this, because
this is a very big thought, is that, you know, Nigan, to your point, the system, the construct
of the system is adversarial.
The whole idea is that the police investigate, the prosecutors prosecute, and they do their

(01:09:41):
job and the defence lawyers defend and the judge and the juries do their job.
And everybody's got sort of a lane.
And when you set it all in motion and you create the tension of the adversarial system,
it produces an acceptable democratic result, a legitimate result.
And yet we know that, you know, that's not always the case.

(01:10:03):
And it's not always the case even in cases where there's an appropriate conviction.
And so the point I was going to try to make was I just was going to wonder out loud whether
we should start thinking about a more inquisitorial system.
I mean, we can talk about more community level justice systems and we can talk about less

(01:10:30):
formalistic, less sort of colonial systems.
And I actually like the idea of community courts and they're being used, you know, in
various places across the country with varying degrees of success.
But I think the core of it is in the Milgar case, for example, if the judge, when you

(01:10:51):
have a jury trial, the judge really tries to stay out of the questioning and really
stay out of the way of the job of the jury.
And you know, that's probably appropriate.
But in the Milgar case, for example, if the judge had intervened and started asking questions
about the physical possibility of the facts that were being laid out, things that we were

(01:11:12):
able to show demonstrably after the conviction and after the appeals were factually not possible,
then this whole thing might have been avoided.
And so I think that the change that I would like to see is a more inquisitorial and active

(01:11:33):
role for judges in preserving and overseeing the integrity of the criminal justice process
in real time and not solely relying on, you know, what happens in a trial and then the
appeal mechanisms and then eventually potentially an application to a minister of justice.
Let's try to deal with these things as they're happening to avoid people unnecessarily spending

(01:11:59):
time in jail.
You know, it's I knew this was going to we were going to reach a point where we had to
wrap up the interview and I was going to be incredibly frustrated because we haven't really
had a chance to tell all the glorious stories that you and I share from the the Milgard
years.
I just want to say I still remember the video that you guys shot where you walked the route

(01:12:23):
that the police in Saskatoon said the murderer had traveled and showed that the the timing
that they had used at trial wasn't possible.
So and I just remember of all the stuff you gave me initially on our first meeting that
is you know sometimes the the truth of these cases is very simple to see but very very

(01:12:46):
hard to accept.
It's it's it's Dan it's interesting because David and by the way it's a podcast can't
you just go on forever?
Yeah, yeah, yeah we could.
But you know the the audience numbers drop off significantly right about now.
So well I could well I'll sing if you want to keep trying.

(01:13:09):
No I tried that it didn't work.
No what I was going to say was that you know almost from the very beginning David kept
you know I was looking at the transcripts and digesting all the facts he kept saying
they can't put me in that picture they can't put me in that picture and I did not understand
exactly what he meant until his sister Susan and Maureen and then Joyce translated said

(01:13:34):
go walk it.
So I took my little my little camcorder at the time and and yeah as you say the picture
painted a trial was as though it was a static snapshot of a series of facts and it did not
account for the fact that people were in motion.

(01:13:56):
The victim was going in motion from her house to a bus stop.
Other witnesses were going from east to west.
People were moving and when you set it all in motion you know you know the victim was
at her destination before the four of Milgard and his friends allegedly because who knows

(01:14:19):
whether they were even in the area were where the Crown said they were which gave him the
opportunity to commit the crime.
And so yeah and what I like about the new commission is that it might be that you can
do something like that and go to the commission the new commission and say we don't know and

(01:14:40):
don't have access to all the stuff that underlies this but here's a set of facts that don't
work and again it's really important there's an important nuance and James Lockyer you
know really underscores this.
The burden or the threshold has changed the current threshold is you have to show that
there likely was a miscarriage of justice in the new world.

(01:15:04):
It's that there may be a miscarriage of justice which lowers that threshold and adds a second
part which is that or that having another look at the case might be in the public interest
which is you know which is very discretionary.
So again I think that the federal government and Minister Lumani have done an amazing job

(01:15:25):
and I think that I wish we had this regime in 1986 or I wish that you know I wish that
David Milgard had never been convicted.
Just as a final thought and just so people understand how steep the hill is in the Milgard

(01:15:46):
case they caught the murderer they put his DNA in the body of the victim and yet today
you and I could pick up the phone and reach people who were still working within Saskatchewan
Justice and think he's guilty.
So that if people want to know how steep the hill is that's how steep the hill is.
David really appreciate you joining us on this topic and I know you've done as much

(01:16:11):
as anybody to keep the fires burning on this working closely with the Milgard's and I'm
sure you'll join me in saying that you know the saddest point of all is that neither Joyce
nor David were around to see Minister Lumani's legislation come forward but we know they
would be very happy about what's happening.

(01:16:34):
Well I reflected on this.
David and I were supposed to get honorary doctor of law degrees last year at convocation
at University of Manitoba and I accepted his posthumously and I reflected on this and not
all stories have happy endings and people die.

(01:16:56):
People pass away some early some live long rich lives and the question isn't whether
you live but whether you lived with meaning and I take great comfort and I know that in
the spirit world both David and Joyce know that whatever travails happen in their lives

(01:17:18):
with the announcement of the new legislation their lives had meaning and that's the most
important thing.
Miigwech for your time and really appreciate talking about something that you know it was
31 years ago and it feels so close and so thanks for bringing that attention to David
and to Joyce.
So that's another episode of Niigwana the Lone Ranger and your return episode.

(01:17:45):
Yep I'm back and I'm not going anywhere.
As a matter of fact I've set up a sleeping bag on the floor here in the studio.
I'm just gonna hold down my place.
So yeah.
I'm not sure how Adam would feel about that.
Yeah no so long as you don't touch my sleeping bag then that's okay.
Adam never leaves either.
Speaking of our wonderful producer Adam here at the CJNU studio, big Miigwech and thanks

(01:18:10):
to everybody here for your hard work and also big thanks to all of our colleagues at the
Winnipeg Free Press for the hard work that they do particularly Wendy Sawatsky who uploads
and makes us sound so great and looks so great on the website and editor Paul Semin at the
Free Press for all of his support and a huge thanks to of course all of our listeners.

(01:18:31):
I don't think we say enough thanks to all of you for supporting us on this journey.
We've really been impressed and surprised at times but I think very happily surprised
at the amount of feedback that we get on the podcast.
A goodly number appear to be listening so yeah.
Send us tweets.
You can catch us on Twitter.
Big Miigwech for joining us and we'll see you down the trail.

(01:18:53):
Bye bye.