Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor
Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been in a Chinese prison for more than 1.5 years. They were arrested just days after Canada did something really, really stupid. They arrested Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, as she landed in Vancouver, on request by the US. She is suspected of violating American sanctions against Iran.
Canada (ie Trudeau) should have told Trump years ago not to expect us to help with prosecuting people suspected of breaking American sanctions. Most American sanctions have to do with economic matters, not strategic matters. Trump has been bullying countries into buying American products, especially weapons systems through such sanctions. There is only one way to handle a bully and that is to stand up to him. Trudeau didn't have the courage. Jean Cretien would have told Trump to get lost, and there would never have been the arrests of the two Michaels.
To my astonishment, the extradition court didn't throw the case out of court because Meng was not accused of violating any Canadian laws. You can't be extradited from Canada for breaking a law that doesn't exist in Canada. Nevertheless, the judge somehow saw it differently. If you have read much of my other blog, you will know how much I think of Canadian judges.
So, now we have Meng leisurely lounging in one of her two Vancouver mansions, and the two Michaels surviving in a Chinese prison that is anything but luxurious. And the Liberal government is doing nothing about it, nothing! The Attorney General has the authority to dismiss Meng's case, whereupon the two Michaels will be sent home, but he won't. Why?
The Great Hypocrisy
Two years ago Trudeau greatly interfered in a case the Attorney General was allowing to go to prosecution despite backroom political maneuvering where the PM and his staff created a law specifically to rescue the company from prosecution. The company, SNC Lavalin, the most corrupt company in Canadian history, would be allowed to buy their way out of prosecution. The AG balked and got her back up the more people from the PMO pushed her. Her courage and backbone got her fired as AG and replaced with someone with a more flexible spinal column, a team player, someone who would protect the PM at the expense of the Canadian people.
The consequence, Trudeau lost two of his best ministers, they quit. Both were women and one is indigenous. As a feminist who stands up for indigenous peoples, his hypocrisy was glaringly obvious. And, it is alarmingly obvious now as he stands before his cottage (remember when we had a parliament?) and pronounces over and over again that Canada is a country of laws and the government will not interfere with the law.
The two Michaels give Trudeau the opportunity to restate that every few days, as if it were true. I think he believes if he says it enough, we Canadians will actually believe it and forget all about the SNC-Lavalin fiasco. Consequently, it has become another fall-out from his corrupt handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.
My question is, who approved the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in the first place? When the request came in from Washington to arrest her and hold her for extradition, who approved it? Who was the top person to authorize it? Was it a politician? If so, then politics has already interfered with the judicial system. If not, then why did we arrest someone who broke no Canadian laws? As a favour to the USA? How does that fit with politics not interfering with justice?
The Canadian government can intervene to end Meng's extradition trial. Should it?
Extradition Act allows justice minister to intervene at any point during judicial phase
Mark Gollom, Olivia Stefanovich · CBC News
Any decision on the fate of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, currently awaiting a decision on extradition from Canada, is going to have political fallout. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)
While seasoned jurists say the Canadian government has every legal right to intervene to free Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou from her extradition trial to the U.S., some experts warn such an action could have significant political ramifications.
"The question isn't whether the [Canadian government] can, the question is whether they should," said Toronto-based lawyer Brian Greenspan.
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to include a specific provision that provides the federal minister of justice the power to intervene in an extradition at any point during the judicial phase.
"The minister has the right to withdraw the authority to proceed and to end the extradition proceeding, and it's totally at the discretion of the minister of justice," Greenspan said.
Extradition proceedings continue in the case against Meng, who was arrested in 2018 in Vancouver on behalf of American justice officials. The United States wants to prosecute Meng for fraud, alleging she lied to banks about her company's connections with Iran, which could possibly violate U.S. sanctions.
The issue of the Canadian government intervening in the case of Meng, the daughter of the Chinese technology giant's founder, was raised recently by the wife of Michael Kovrig, one of two Canadians being held in China on charges of spying.
The Trudeau government has accused China of detaining Kovrig and Michael Spavor in retaliation for the arrest of Meng. Some have suggested Canada could secure their freedom if it put an end to the extradition proceedings against Meng and allowed her to return to China.
Trudeau has said his government continues to work behind the scenes to secure the release of the two Canadians but has ruled out a prisoner exchange.
Still in custody
The Office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti, said in a statement Tuesday they are "well aware of the laws and processes governing" the extradition proceedings.
"As Ms. Meng's case remains before the courts, and the Minister of Justice has a direct role in the extradition process, it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter," the statement said.
Former Supreme Court of Canada justice John Major said while Lametti can intervene at any time in the extradition process, it would be unusual — especially if after a prolonged court hearing, it concluded in favour of extradition.
But Major noted there may be reasons to do it, especially as Kovrig and Spavor languish in Chinese detention.
"I would hope before the attorney general intervenes, [he] would have reasons that convince Canadians he should," Major told CBC News.
"The attorney general has to be very cautious in overruling a trial judge who has conducted a full hearing … You just want [Lametti] to act judiciously, not politically."
'Be very cautious'
Major said Canada is stuck in a difficult position, because if the attorney general quashes the judge's decision in Meng's case, the U.S. could react. Likewise, if the judge turns down extradition, China could retaliate.
"It's a delicate situation where you have the U.S. at odds with China and Canada being caught in the middle," Major said.
Donald Abelson, director of St. Francis Xavier University's Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, said he believes it would be "a very dangerous game for Canada to play in terms of succumbing to pressure" to intervene politically in the case.
"I don't think that's a game that we want to play," said Abelson, who was also a founding director of the Canada-U.S. Institute. "It puts us in a very, very precarious position because we don't want to be seen by the Americans as succumbing to Chinese political pressure."
No, we want to be seen by Americans as succumbing to American political pressure.
Abelson said Canada would be "tempting fate" with the U.S, particularly in the current political climate, where the Chinese government has become the focus of Donald Trump's ire in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and the countries' trade war.
Abelson said Canada doesn't want to become a "punching bag" for Washington.
David Carment, a professor at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said he believes Canada's intervention would prompt the Trump administration to use it as a rallying cry to undermine Trudeau's leadership and his pursuit for a majority government when he calls an election.
"I think all sort of diplomatic gloves would come off in this case. The United States would come out fighting and work to undermine this current government's mandate," he said.
So, it seems that the AG should not interfere with the judicial system for political reasons???????
WhaaaaaT?
Christopher Sands, director of the Centre for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the state department officials who brought the case forward against Meng would be unhappy with Canada's decision to intervene.
But Canada's decision to intervene came when they arrested Meng, in the first place.
Trump would likely be angry, send off a dismissive tweet or give Trudeau the cold shoulder at the next G7 meeting. But Sands doesn't believe it would result in major policy ramifications against Canada.
"Would it be 'Canadians are no longer allowed to cross the border?' No. The relationship between us and Canada is too big and complex for that," he said. "I can't see any lasting damage."
From CTV News:
But Treasury Board president Jean-Yves Duclos emphasized the importance of judicial independence when he was asked about this option to withdraw the extradition during his Tuesday press conference.
"In Canada, we have not only a tradition but a responsibility to work in a manner that is supportive of the integrity and the independence of our justice system," Duclos said.
"This is very important for the way in which our institutions work in Canada, we have a separation between the executive, and the legislative, as well as the judicial systems, and that's exactly what it should be."
Unless, of course, you are talking about SNC-Lavalin!
No comments:
Post a Comment