I can't comment on that specific experience. I think that the kinds of programs we support are about long-term engagement, where the same players on each side are involved with each other over an extended period.
I really think the committee would need to talk with the Canadian experts—judges, legal scholars, and so on—who are involved in the actual programs we're supporting to get a sense from them of what they've been seeing, and whether or not when they visited courts and engaged with court personnel they had a sense that something was staged for them.
Hypothetically, I would suggest that a one-time visit, a one-time exchange, has a greater risk of that kind of thing happening than if you have a sustained series of visits back and forth with people who are talking as professionals to professionals.
Certainly our experience, from talking with the people who are involved day-to-day in the projects that we are supporting at the National Judicial Institute, the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, and the Canadian Bar Association, is that they have professional counterparts and professional discussions.
When our Supreme Court justices engaged with their counterparts in China, they reported to us that they had substantive discussions, and that's what we have to go on in terms of having a level of confidence.