We take note of those comments, and we've heard those views expressed in diplomatic meetings repeatedly.
For example, in the interview in The Globe and Mail today with the high commissioner, he also points out that there is a difference between Canada's and India's definitions of, for example, “terrorism”. Therefore, it's important for governments—India's or otherwise—to bring forward concrete, substantiated cases and not just allegations.
Canada has an elaborate and well-staffed set of teams—be it at Justice Canada or with the RCMP, including our liaison officers abroad and so on and so forth—to work with foreign countries to address issues of transnational crime, including terrorism, when there is evidence.
In the case of our relationship with India, it has sometimes been a sticking point. We're aware that they have concerns. We're ready to deal with them. I know that there's currently a very active caseload, as I said, for Justice Canada. Part of that gets to saying what our threshold is and asking whether they can provide evidence that meets that. For example, Justice Canada and the RCMP in the past have done, effectively, workshops with the Indian government to explain what our standards legally would be.
I understand that the high commissioner has a job to do and has his instructions. We speak about these issues regularly. We're diplomats. At the end of the day, what's really important is for his government's justice and policing agencies and institutions to work closely with ours. I know—