A report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chaired by Liberal MP Randeep Sarai, also calls on the government to make administrative changes to the procedure for deporting people who are to be prosecuted and detained abroad.

The report adds that at hearings earlier this year, MPs heard cases where there was “evidence of real harm from flaws in our existing legislation and procedure and as examples of injustices likely to materialize in the future.” .” “Lack of reforms”.

Rob Currie, a law professor at Dalhousie University, one of the longtime critics of the extradition system who appeared before the committee, welcomed the committee’s findings. “You really heard us. It shows a great understanding of the issues we highlighted.”

shortcomings and injustices

Reform advocates have long highlighted the case of Ottawa sociologist Hassan Diab, a Canadian national, who was extradited to France and jailed for more than three years, only to be released without even being tried. For an attack on a Paris synagogue in 1980.

Mr Diab, who had always maintained his innocence, returned to Canada but was then tried in absentia in Paris for the attack that left four dead and 46 injured. A French court sentenced him to life imprisonment last April and issued an arrest warrant allowing him to be extradited again.

As part of the first stage of Canada’s extradition process, Justice Department officials decide whether or not to grant what is known as a “continuation permit” at the next stage, a court hearing. If the case goes ahead, a court will decide whether there is sufficient evidence or other applicable grounds to justify surrendering an individual for extradition.

When the extradition of a person is ordered, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person to be handed over to the foreign state.

Critics say the detention process undermines the wanted person’s ability to meaningfully challenge the foreign case against them. They add that Canadian judges would then have little say.

They also say that the Attorney General’s surrender decision is a political discretionary process wrongly biased towards extradition.

Supporters of Hassan Diab have long claimed that he was in Beirut taking university exams, not Paris, when the synagogue attack took place. They say fingerprints, handprints and handwriting clear him of the act.

MPs heard testimony including Mr Diab’s wife, Rania Tfaily, civil society representatives, law professors and Justice Department officials.

The committee’s recommendations include:

— modernize outdated contracts and withdraw contracts with partners that violate serious international human rights standards;

— lowering the threshold required to remove the presumption of reliability of the extraditing partner’s file during the placement hearing;

— establish the obligation for a partner state to organize the trial of a person whose extradition is requested within one year of his or her surrender to the foreign state;

– add a legal obligation for the Department of Justice to disclose to the person whose extradition is being sought any exculpatory evidence in its possession or known that could jeopardize or weaken the partner State’s request;

– and giving the extradition judge a greater role than the Minister of Justice, in particular by giving Canadian courts the power to rule on the fairness of the extradition decision, taking into account the situation of the person sought and the respect for human rights by the extradition partner.

Rob Currie said a better balance between the role of judge and minister was important as the law currently gives very little power to judges in the extradition process. “Most big and important legal matters are actually delegated to the minister,” he says.

Attorney General David Lametti’s office had no immediate comment on the committee’s report, which asked the Canadian government for a detailed written response.