Thank you for your response.
When we listen to the evidence, to the testimony you've given in this particular case, and to what has happened to this individual, I don't believe there's a person around this table who wouldn't be gravely concerned about those kinds of abuses.
On the other side of this, I'm very concerned about lists being compiled--everything from the no-fly list here.... That's something that's being debated in our parliamentary circles: when a Canadian airplane happens to go to Cuba, it has to cross American airspace, and thus we have to give personal information. Of course, that's a side issue.
Again, you're talking about the standards of evidence and the presumption of innocence, but also about how a person should face their accuser directly and see the evidence against them.
I'm not one to defend Russia's business community or its government, for sure, and I don't doubt the veracity of what you're telling us. I'm just concerned about the kind of response to which a person doesn't have the option of responding.
The other side of it is guilt by association, such that family members of these individuals would be prohibited from travelling as well. It strikes me that we're not in control of what our fathers do, or whoever. That seems to me to be taking it a little bit far.
I am curious, though. You mentioned Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his commentary. Did the British government take any active steps beyond that concerning commentary?