Okay. I think I understand your question a little better.
In principle, extradition is an important tool and a necessary tool in order for Canada to meet its international obligations and in order to ensure that people who break the law face justice. There may be more situations in which it's appropriate to hold trials in Canada than is currently the case, but there are always going to be lots of cases where it's appropriate to extradite the individual as well.
In making the Halifax proposals, we were sensitive to the issue that the extradition hearing in Canada is not a substitute for a trial in the foreign country. We fully anticipate there will always be extradition. There will always be people sent for trial in foreign countries. What we would like to see is a fairer way of making the determinations about whether or not to extradite and, yes, it may involve more consideration of what the foreign state's criminal law system looks like, but that evidence is available out there and it's available to be put before the court.
When you combine that with closer attention by the government to the state of affairs in the foreign state, both generally and with respect to particular cases, I think we could get an extradition process that works just as well, just as effectively and smoothly, but works in a more fair manner and prevents miscarriages of justice, such as what is happening to Dr. Diab.