First of all, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment directly on the Halifax proposal.
I have reviewed it and I am familiar with some of the things they're proposing. What I would say is that it's one perspective. I'm not saying that it's not valid, but it's not the only perspective. It's coming from a particular viewpoint, and in order to make any determinations about what would need to be done and whether anything needs to be done to change our law, we'd want to look at a broader range of views. We'd look to foreign partners. We'd look to prosecution services and police as well as the viewpoint they have put forward in this particular report.
There are a lot of different things that are raised. One thing I note in the report that I found somewhat surprising is that there's an emphasis on the need for us to put more things before the courts. As I mentioned, the courts are very much involved in extradition cases, but at the same time, it's saying that the courts should have a greater role. The report disagreed with a great many decisions out of the Supreme Court of Canada and suggests that we should legislate differently from what the Supreme Court has said. That's a surprising aspect of the report, from my perspective.
There are a number of things I've mentioned that are not consistent with what I understand to be the principles of extradition. The presumption of good faith is a fundamental presumption of extradition. We refer to it as “comity”. Without it, you can't have extradition: It means that you don't trust anybody else.