That's wonderful of you. Thank you.
Where I left off was talking about the gender-based analysis plus and why we need that.
I would like the committee to consider, in addition to the Halifax proposals, which you've either heard about or will be hearing about tonight with Professor Currie, looking at the creation of a body that is independent of the international assistance group.
Right now, a foreign jurisdiction makes a request to the Minister of Justice. It goes to the international assistance group, which makes a recommendation. Then we go to a judicial review and there are final submissions, which go back to the people who initiated the process. We need some kind of independent oversight in there.
As part of that independent oversight, we need to have a real, transparent, intelligible and justificatory analysis, especially in cases that involve women and children who are fleeing violence and for racialized individuals who would clearly face discrimination if they were sent back, even to a jurisdiction like the United States. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tyre Nichols—that's all you need to know.
The problem is that in the Extradition Act itself—and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court—ultimately the surrender decision is not a legal one; it's a political one. Basically, the Minister of Justice is tasked with deciding whether or not he's going to piss off the United States or piss off the Government of France if they do not receive the requested individual.
That's the problem, where they have this massive discretionary authority to essentially say that someone's charter rights are secondary to their concerns about state-to-state relations. That, I think, is something we really need to look at.
The other thing that's a real concern is that often, when we do present evidence to the Minister of Justice about the risk of torture or the risk of other human rights abuses, they come back at us and say that, if going they're to Chicago, which has one of the highest rates of police torture of Black detainees, there's always a remedy. They can make a complaint to Amnesty International or go to a federal court.
However, redress for harm done is not protection of fundamental human rights. It's an after-the-fact remedy. You should be entitled to human rights protection in the first instance. It shouldn't be payment for damages after the harm has been inflicted.
The other thing I just wanted to share—and I do appreciate not only your beautiful hairline, but also that you're sharing your time with me—is that in the M.M. case, Justice Abella wrote, “At the end of the day, there is little demonstrable harm to the integrity of our extradition process in finding it to be unjust or oppressive to extradite the mother of young children she rescued, at their request, from their abusive father.” She recognized that at the Supreme Court, as did two other justices. The fact that it was split right down the middle by gender is very interesting as well.
If I do have about 30 seconds, one other thing I think really needs to be on the agenda here is the way in which the Extradition Act intersects with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We have seen in a number of instances, especially when it comes to Roma refugees coming from European countries such as Hungary or the Czech Republic, whereby after years of being here as protected Roma persons, suddenly there is an extradition request. Based on the low standards, they then face losing their refugee protection.
We have a number of cases where the Minister of Justice has gone to the Minister of Immigration and asked for a new opinion about the risk, allegedly, that may befall that person if they are sent back to a state where they fled from persecution in the first place.