Justice committee  That's combined with the reverse onus on the individual to demonstrate what's called manifest unreliability. Together, that produces an inherently inevitable extradition.

Justice committee  No, it's in the act.

Justice committee  It's right in the act. The first part of it, the creation of a statutory presumption of reliability of unsworn hearsay evidence, is in the act. In 2006, on a constitutional challenge to the regime in a case called Ferras, the Supreme Court tried to save the system, saying that

Justice committee  Meng is an interesting case that you raised. The argument is always made by the Department of Justice lawyers who work in this field that, “Oh, we need to cut down these rights”, or “These won't be expeditious hearings.” They are not expeditious hearings. They're not expeditiou

Justice committee  That sounds like a dangerous invitation to go down a debate that was held in this country not long ago. I don't think I'm the person qualified to resolve that. I think you people are.

Justice committee  It's not what strikes me as being at the heart of what's wrong here.

Justice committee  I think the way to answer that is to read to you the provisions of the Extradition Act. Subsection 32(2), “Exception—Canadian evidence”, provides that you don't need to disclose to the requesting state all of the evidence. Evidence gathered in Canada must satisfy the rules of e

Justice committee  That's right. What's the cost? The prosecutor makes a cost-effective analysis: “Is it worth more to me if I disclose it and try to have it admitted, or is it actually going to harm my case?” In that case, you don't disclose it because you're not going to rely on it.

Justice committee  It is.

Justice committee  I agree with you. Crown attorneys who adopt that approach are valuable and do a wonderful service in our justice system.

Justice committee  I think it's not only an apparent conflict of interest; it's a real conflict of interest. That's not all that the IAG does. When you come to the ministerial stage, the minister turns to the same people who were very ardent and aggressive advocates in the courtroom for advice on

Justice committee  At the end of the day, it's virtually everything. If you examine the role of the judge—and the judges have at least privately, if not publicly, lamented this—you see that they are rubber stamps. They don't have a judicial function. They don't weigh the evidence. They don't make

Justice committee  Interestingly enough, more than a decade ago, two decades ago, that's exactly what—

Justice committee  Anne Warner La Forest questioned why Canada even has judges involved in the process when so little is given to the judge to do. She was very prescient about how we were going off the rails with this act, and as I say, it's only gotten worse because the judges sit there.... There

Justice committee  No.