Maybe it's my age.
We had an unusual case of a Canadian who was facing allegations of serious fraud in Ontario. The person disappeared to England and ultimately turned up accused of a very serious violent offence in England. He was convicted and transferred back to Canada under the transfer of offenders act, unbeknownst to the family here in Canada, because of course they were estranged from him at that point. The family back here in Canada was very upset. I met with them. They had not been notified in advance. They were very concerned about the physical proximity of the individual. They were very concerned about the risk he posed to people here in Canada.
I simply raise that as an example of a situation where there can be fact patterns beyond what you can imagine. The objective of the legislation and the decision-making is to provide sufficient flexibility without being wide open. I think that's a good example of a case where there were victims here in Canada of a previous set of circumstances who felt victimized again due to not having been taken into account in the transfer decision.