That's fine.
I apologize. Frankly, I sniffle for about six months of the year. It's just something with my biology. I apologize to the translators. If I have to sniffle, I will try to mute myself because the last thing I want to do is harm the translators here. I'm getting a thumbs-up, so I apologize. Thank you for your work.
I'm going to start from where I left off.
I know both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Housefather to be conscientious members of this committee and of Parliament and both are persons of principle. Though we often will disagree, I think we all would say that we stand fast by our principles. I do not doubt where they're coming from.
One thing I was discussing was that as a defence lawyer, when I was dealing with a matter that wasn't really necessarily a serious matter in society's eyes, but a matter that nonetheless would attract significant liability before the court, it's my view that a miscarriage of justice occurred. That sticks with me each and every single day. It's not something I want to relive.
One thing we deal with in this committee—and perhaps this is even tunnel vision on our part as a committee, or maybe it's just where we get wrapped up—is that it's so easy to focus on the big cases. When I say “big cases”, I'm talking about the people who've been convicted and incarcerated for a great deal of time. For everybody who has their day in court, that's a big day, whether they're there for the first time or whether they're there for the 100th time. It's their liberty on the line. That is important. That's their day. Perhaps for some people, if they've been through it a number of times, it's not going to be the same as for the person who walks into trial for the first time. That isn't to say, though, that it's not important. It certainly is.
We frequently hear about people who were incarcerated on life sentences, for instance, whose exoneration came after years on parole and after they had served a substantial amount of their sentence.
That's one thing I wanted to state for the record. When we do consider wrongful convictions, we have to think about this in the grand scheme of it all. Second, I don't think anybody here ever would want to see that.
Mr. Garrison and Mr. Housefather bring forward two competing amendments. In my view, they generally do accomplish similar things. We've heard from both of them what their interpretations are, and I'll be very candid: I'm terrible. In trying to piece together what exactly LIB-1 says, I'm not the best person to look at that and say this is exactly what it is.
Ms. Besner or Ms. Dekker, could either of you tell us independently what the upshot of each of these amendments is, in your eyes, and where the substantial similarities and differences are, please?