RCMP Watch

Tim Cook, Canadian Press via Canada.com, July 05, 2006

REGINA — The Attorney General of Canada has filed an application seeking a court order that could limit how closely the actions of federal justice officials can be examined by the public inquiry looking into David Milgaard’s wrongful murder conviction.

Federal lawyers say the issue is simply a matter of jurisdiction, but the lawyer acting on behalf of Milgaard at the inquiry wonders if the federal government has something to hide.

Milgaard spent 23 years wrongfully behind bars for the 1969 rape and murder of Saskatoon nursing aide Gail Miller. It was a crime DNA evidence would eventually prove he didn’t commit.

For the last 18 months, the inquiry has been hearing witnesses as it tries to get the bottom of what went wrong. More than 100 people have testified so far and the previous testimony of 18 more has been read into record. The transcript is now more than 35,000 pages long.

The Milgaard inquiry was called by the Saskatchewan government and the province is putting up the $10 million the hearings are expected to cost. As such, it is limited in how thoroughly it can examine the management of federal intuitions.

Federal lawyers have argued that any advice given to then justice minister Kim Campbell while she reviewed Milgaard’s conviction in the early 1990s, is out of bounds.

But, in a ruling last month, the inquiry judge, Justice Edward MacCallum, said he would decide jurisdictional questions on a case-by-case basis as they came up.

On Tuesday, the federal government filed an application in Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench asking that the ruling be thrown that out.

“What’s there to hide?” asked Milgaard’s lawyer Hersh Wolch. “I think they are just trying to thwart the inquiry from getting at the truth.”

Federal justice lawyer Mark Kindrachuk said the application is not about hiding anything.

“It’s a point of some importance, not just for this inquiry, but generally, because there are constitutional boundaries with respect to the powers of provinces and respect to the powers of the federal government,” Kindrachuk said.

“It is an important principle constitutionally and it is something that the Attorney General of Canada feels it necessary to have a court rule upon.”

Kindrachuk points out that the federal government has disclosed thousands of documents to the inquiry and made witnesses for the department available to testify.

But Wolch said that’s no good if they can’t be asked why certain decisions were made.

He notes that the Milgaards have bent over backwards to ensure the inquiry can examine everything about the case, waving attorney-client privilege so that witnesses can talk freely about their actions from the stand.

“Everything was disclosed,” Wolch said. “Now when it comes to the decisions made by government employees on the taxpayers’ dollar they don’t want to tell us what one said to the other.”

Inquiry lawyer Doug Hodson said it’s unclear what impact the application could have on the inquiry.

Hodson points out that the federal Justice Department lawyer who reviewed Milgaard’s conviction for the minister has been on the stand for two weeks so far and is scheduled to continue his testimony when the inquiry resumes next month.

“If the application is dismissed we’ll carry on and if the application is granted … then we’ll carry on,” Hodson said.

“When you get right down to it, it’s an issue between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada as to what extent can the province’s inquiry get into federal matters.”
© Canadian Press 2006