Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
I'm going to comment on three areas that need extradition law reform. My first area of focus concerns the need for greater transparency and government disclosure of extradition-related data.
One lesson learned from the media coverage of several contentious extradition cases is that the public needs to more clearly understand the extradition process, the role of the courts, the role of the minister and the timelines involved. In the Meng Wanzhou extradition, the Department of Justice did eventually publish an infographic, a fact sheet and some statistical information, but more is needed.
Extradition law and practice are not well understood widely, and if we are to improve extradition, we need the data held within government. I suspect that this data will show that extradition is often not the speedy, efficient process it is pitched as being. We need to understand why, and to do that we need the disclosure of information.
There are statutes that require designated ministers to prepare an annual report to Parliament on the implementation of a treaty and the enforcement of an act. The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act provides an example. It requires the ministers of foreign affairs, international trade, and justice to jointly prepare a report on the implementation of the Anti-Bribery Convention and on the enforcement of the related legislation.
In my view, a similar reporting obligation is needed in the Extradition Act so as to require the regular public disclosure of the number of extradition requests Canada receives, from which countries and for what crimes. This annual report to Parliament should provide some information on what evaluation was undertaken of the requests received, the reasons for any delay and the end result.
It would also be helpful to indicate whether the individual to be extradited is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. I make this last point as the cases that have taken many years in the Canadian courts so often have involved requests for the extradition of Canadian citizens.
There's also a need to require the public disclosure of the assurances provided by a foreign country that are used to secure an individual's extradition. With Canadian jurisprudence supporting the use of diplomatic assurances to alleviate any potential human rights risks arising, there is a rule-of-law rationale for making these assurances publicly available. Secrecy does not build trust in the rule of law, and publicity would add strength to any assurance provided by a foreign state.
My second area of focus concerns the siloed nature of extradition practice and its centralization within the Department of Justice. By its very nature, extradition involves and has implications for both international law and international relations. It's for this reason, I submit, that extradition needs the involvement of both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice.
The Extradition Act imposes a consultation obligation for the Minister of Immigration but no consultation obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, despite the expertise available to the foreign affairs minister to assess a foreign state in terms of its human rights record, the fairness of its trials and the conditions of its prisons. A foreign affairs ministry also has the capacity to undertake the post-surrender monitoring recommended by an Australian parliamentary committee.
Foreign affairs considerations should also be addressed at an earlier stage in the process, upon receipt of an extradition request. Justice Canada could be obliged to work with Global Affairs Canada on the consideration of all possible grounds for refusal of an extradition request at the preliminary stage rather than many years later in controversial cases. Alternatively, the evaluation of an extradition request could be made the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada as the chief law officer without the political responsibilities of the job of the justice minister.
The third area for reform is the role of the extradition judge. Since extradition involves the loss of an individual's fundamental right to liberty, a rational basis exists for a more robust role to be accorded to the extradition judge. Indeed, in Victorian times it was the role of the judge to consider whether extradition in the circumstances was unjust or oppressive. Today Canadian extradition law directs that the justice minister make that call. Enabling a more robust role for the extradition judge would allow an individual's circumstances, the values of the Canadian legal system and the human rights record of the requesting country to be considered directly and openly by a court.
On that note, I cede the floor to my colleague, Professor Robert Currie.