Well, in some jurisdictions, appeal courts have the power to set aside convictions when they have, as they put it, “a sense of unease” about the conviction. Our courts of appeal do not give themselves that power, and only legislative change would do that. It's something that we advocated for to Minister Lametti when he was considering this legislation. It's something that Justice LaForme recommended in his recommendations to the minister.
It may be something for another day. I want to get this commission going, and obviously you're going to have to consult appeal courts if you're going to change their jurisdiction, and that hasn't been done.
Could I just add one thing about the victims of the crimes for which someone has been wrongly convicted? There are two important things there. One is that if a person has been wrongly convicted of the crime, that means the right person hasn't, so the victim of the crime has not gotten justice.
Second, in many of our cases, the victims of the crimes have actually showed up at the proceedings. Just in July of this year, in appearing before the chief justice in the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba, we had two indigenous men, Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse, acquitted of a 50-year-old murder that neither of them had committed. That happened just three months ago. The family of the deceased, of the man who was murdered, was in court, and it was marvellous to see them in the same place and with the two men who, for 50 years, have been wrongly convicted of their father's crime or their uncle's crime, depending upon which relative we're talking about.
Wrongful convictions have a scope that goes beyond the individuals themselves who have been wrongly convicted. It's important as well for the victims of the original crime.