[gardner]

Yes sanctions are a political tool.

However, she is charged with fraud.
This is a crime in Canada.
The US is asking for her extradition for an act that is both a crime in Canada and a crime in the USA.

The mere fact that there is a crime called fraud in both jurisdictions is not enough. The test is wether the pattern of conduct is criminal in both jurisdictions and the specifics of the alleged case very much matter. Just because the Americans see an actionable fraud offence in an act does not automatically mean that Canada does.

The fraud relates to the alleged misrepresentation of the dealings given to a US subsidiary of the UK/Hong Kong bank that was or would have been a party to the transaction. I don't believe it is alleged that the US subsidiary was or would have been involved. At the time of the transactions there were no operative sanctions in Canada, China, HK or the UK. It is quite evident that the whole thing is only an issue due to the American's intent to insinuate their domestic sanctions policy to operate extraterratorially by means of leverage over businesses that operate in the US.

The Canadian Foreign Extraterratorial Measure Act makes clear that Canada doesn't necessarily stand still for this sort of thing, however the only specific regulation enacted under that act thusfar has to do with American sanctions on Cuba. I personally believe that we should operate it generally, but the AG has to decide. I am a little surprised that at lest the intent of the FEMA was not touched on in the decision.

The judge did think about whether it matters that the US sanctions exist as regards dual criminality and concluded that it certainly does. Absent the sanction rules there is no case to answer. She also considered whether there could be rules or laws in the US that would be rejected as a basis for a fraud charge and she pointed to unconscionable slavery laws that the courts had rejected as a basis for dual criminality in the 19th century. So for her the question come down to: could Canada have regulation similar to the ones in the US, even if it does not at present, and the answer is yes, it clearly could. I think this means that if the alleged fraud had been in relation to a hypothetical slavery or blasphemy regulation then the dual criminality test would have failed. But since it is in relation to a type of regulation Canada has and upholds, even if not an exact one, it does not.

 

[Topo]

I don't understand what Trudeau is thinking here:

“If countries around the world, including China, realize that by arbitrarily arresting random Canadians, they can get what they want out of Canada politically, well that makes an awful lot more Canadians who travel around the world vulnerable to that kind of pressure,”

First, China is a rational player. They are not going to take hostages to settle a dispute about maple syrup or cheese.

Second, China has imprisoned 2 Canadians for one of their nationals. Going forward, there is no reason they would not imprison 2x Canadians for any Meng that we detain. It is not like they would wake up one day and realize "this is not what we should be doing."

Third, US and the USSR used to exchange prisoners regularly during the cold war. Some of those guys had done way more to threaten national security than Meng could ever imagine of doing. What Meng has done is equivalent to driving at a speed of 95 in a 90 km speed zone. Why shouldn't we do a similar exchange instead of letting Trump do it?

Fourth, we are being severely bullied by both Xi and Trump. Giving in the Xi, at least we get our men back. Giving in to Trump, we get nothing.

Bottom line: Let Xi and Trump play their games on their own turfs.

 

[andrewf]

Sitting on her for years was not a solution. She should have been freed or extradited. Keeping her only gives China incentive to hold Canadians hostage.

 

[sags]

Let her go with a free case of maple syrup,a fine bottle of Canadian wine and Jody Wilson Raybould's deepest apologies.

 

[Beaver101]

Let her go with a free case of maple syrup,a fine bottle of Canadian wine and Jody Wilson Raybould's deepest apologies.

... I think Lametti will be seriously offended.

 

[calm]

Trudeau is having to visit the American Capitalists monthly and borrow funds to prevent the Canadian economy from bankruptcy. Trudeau knows which side of his toast has the butter on it.

Trudeau is going to follow any choice that America makes.

Even when Chretien said no troops in Iraq, Canadians assisted in many ways.

 

[Longtimeago]

Sitting on her for years was not a solution. She should have been freed or extradited. Keeping her only gives China incentive to hold Canadians hostage.

Huh? what are you talking about?

The US asked to have her detained and extradited. They presented their case and under Canadian law, Canada agreed there were legal grounds to detain and extradite her as per our agreements with the USA.

You write as if Canada is keeping her here, it is HER lawyers who are keeping her here. Canada has already AGREED to extradite her. Canada is 'sitting on her for years', she is sitting in Canada for years.

Don't lose focus on who is doing what andrewf. Canada would have extradited her long ago.

 

[Longtimeago]

I am in total agreement with Trudeau. You cannot allow a country to blackmail you into giving them what they want or all they will learn is to do it again the next time they want something from you. You will also simply show others that they could do the same thing. This is not rocket science surely.

What we need is an extradition process that exhausts all legal delays far faster than our present system does.

 

[sags]

Trump wants her sent to the US, so obviously we should set her free.......just to piss him off.

 

[andrewf]

Huh? what are you talking about?

The US asked to have her detained and extradited. They presented their case and under Canadian law, Canada agreed there were legal grounds to detain and extradite her as per our agreements with the USA.

You write as if Canada is keeping her here, it is HER lawyers who are keeping her here. Canada has already AGREED to extradite her. Canada is 'sitting on her for years', she is sitting in Canada for years.

Don't lose focus on who is doing what andrewf. Canada would have extradited her long ago.

Canada I'm sure could have made efforts to expedite and eliminate delays in legal proceedings. The extradition process is broken if it is impossible to resolve a case in a matter of months.

 

[Mukhang pera]

Canada I'm sure could have made efforts to expedite and eliminate delays in legal proceedings. The extradition process is broken if it is impossible to resolve a case in a matter of months.

Do you have some knowledge of the source(s) of any delay? Without knowing the reasons for the present, apparent, slow progress of the matter, I would consider it difficult to lay blame for delay at the feet of Canada.

Both the fugitive and the requesting state are represented by experienced counsel. They have a lot to do with how quickly a case proceeds. Often, for reasons not apparent to anyone unconnected with the case, counsel for both sides are content with a less than furious pace. Do we know here if either side is complaining of delay? If they are not, should "Canada" be telling them to pick up the pace?

If there has been inordinate delay which the fugitive finds objectionable, she can raise that issue before the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage, should the extradition judge grant extradition. The judge cannot invoke s. 11(b) of the Charter (the right to trial within a reasonable time), since the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Charter, s. 11(b), does not apply to extradition proceedings. Section 11(b) does not apply to extraditions: United States of America v. Mellino [1987] 1 S.C.R 537; United States of America v. Allard and Charette [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564.

But, as explained in the case below, the Minister can take delay into account in deciding whether or not to order surrender.

United Kingdom of Great Britain v. Leamont S.C., Goepel J., 2010 BCSC 1281, Vancouver 25193, September 10, 2010 (oral), 12pp.

2010 BCSC 1281 Canada (Attorney General) v. Leamont

These paragraphs of that judgment are instructive:

[33] With regard to the question of delay, the case law recognizes two kinds of delay in extradition proceedings that will result in a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Charter. The first is based on some form of “actual prejudice” to an applicant’s right to a fair extradition hearing which has resulted from the delay. The second does not require actual prejudice, but is based on the delay being of such length that it meets a “simply unacceptable” or “shock the conscience” standard. Such a standard may be met where there has been an “inordinate delay” in the extradition proceedings.

[34] In United States of America v. Gillingham (2004), 184 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (B.C.C.A.), Finch C.J.B.C. at paras. 90-94 explained that submissions by an applicant for a stay of proceedings based on actual prejudice to a fair extradition hearing are within the jurisdiction of the extradition judge. An application for a stay of proceedings based on “simply unacceptable” delay is within the purview of the Minister, and is to be determined by the Minister at the Executive Stage, rather than the extradition judge at the Judicial Stage.

 

[andrewf]

Both the fugitive and the requesting state are represented by experienced counsel. They have a lot to do with how quickly a case proceeds. Often, for reasons not apparent to anyone unconnected with the case, counsel for both sides are content with a less than furious pace. Do we know here if either side is complaining of delay? If they are not, should "Canada" be telling them to pick up the pace?

There is a third party at play here, the government of Canada. Because Canada is seen by China to be in a position to intervene, the shorter the time frame in which Canada is in such a position, the better for us and the Canadians China is holding hostage.

 

[Mukhang pera]

There is a third party at play here, the government of Canada. Because Canada is seen by China to be in a position to intervene, the shorter the time frame in which Canada is in such a position, the better for us and the Canadians China is holding hostage.

In my case, I cannot say what China sees as Canada's position, or much else. I am not close enough to do more than guess.

Probably China sees it that Canada should simply halt the proceedings, ignore its international treaty obligations and send their pal home forthwith (plus, of course, with the standard $10 million green poultice applied for injured feelings). Maybe only a few, like me, see it as a case where the process should be carried out, as in all cases, with no special or differential treatment accorded.

What if "Canada" (in whatever personage is appropriate I will leave up to you) tomorrow tells the parties: "The extradition hearing is set for next Monday at 9 a.m." So, the parties are forced into meeting a timeframe not of their choosing. Let's say extradition is then ordered. Won't China see it that Canada pressed the matter to a hearing for which the fugitive was not prepared, and with disastrous (if not pre-ordained) results for her?

In short, I see it that there can be no room in the judicial process for political interference, whatever its form and however well-intended its purpose. I know I am part of a small minority.

 

[andrewf]

Is there not a bit of difference between calling for an immediate conclusion to the process vs allowing it to stretch on for years? Or are we just waiting for Biden to take office and drop the extradition request? We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.

 

[gardner]

We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.

You say that like there is a choice. Canada is a small power and in a pissing match between super-powers, the best we can hope for is to be uninvolved. If we become involved in some way, there is no chance at all we can be other than pawns.

Our best option, which was lost to us in the first seconds, would have been to fail to pick up the phone when the Americans called, have a strict francophone answer, or mistakenly send the CBSA to gate C34 instead of D34 -- ie: avoid becoming involved. Our best hope now is to find some compliant government official to slap her bum or something, creating a mistreatment in custody that could prevent further custody from being possible.

Trickery to escape involvement would have to be less obvious than what I have suggested. The dickishness of the Americans is no less estimable than that of the Chinese. If we abrogated our treaty obligations with them, the consequences could easily extend to practically everybody, not just a couple of unlucky guys.

 

[gardner]

Won't China see it that Canada pressed the matter to a hearing for which the fugitive was not prepared, and with disastrous (if not pre-ordained) results for her?

Obviously the schedule can be set so short that meaningful preparation is infeasible. But when the schedule extends for years, one wonders what sort of preparation is contemplated. Perhaps Meng's team would feel more prepared when a new government comes to power in the US.

 

[sags]

I googled it and can't find any references to Canada extraditing someone from the US.

The US make requests all the time, including demanding Canadians be extradited to stand trial in the US.

Marc Emery was extradited for selling marijuana seeds through the US postal system.

He was convicted and spent time in a US prison. The US will not turn over American citizens except in certain instances.

It seems to me we need to drop out of the extradition treaty and fashion a new one.

What is interesting in this case, is the AG for Canada at the time of Meng's arrest was Jody Wilson Raybould.

The bank involved was given a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in the US which Raybould refused to give SNC Lavalin.

In return for the DPA, the bank provided the information the US is using to form the allegations against Meng.

If the US was that concerned about the situation, why did they give the bank a DPA and a fine ?

It has also now been confirmed in John Bolton's book that Trump sought a trade with Meng for a new trade deal with China.

Canada should not be doing Trump's dirty work for him.

 

[Longtimeago]

Is there not a bit of difference between calling for an immediate conclusion to the process vs allowing it to stretch on for years? Or are we just waiting for Biden to take office and drop the extradition request? We're allowing Canada to be used as a pawn in a great power struggle between the US and China. I don't understand why we should allow it.

You really don't seem to be getting the message andrewf. Canada has an agreement and therefore have no choice in the matter. Canada is not drawing out the extradition process, the lawyers for Meng and the USA are doing that.

Is it that you can't see that or is it that you don't want to see that? You keep saying things like 'allowing'as if there is a choice.

 

[sags]

The extradition treaty allows the AG to stop the proceedings at any time.

The government has moved away from the claim they "couldn't" do anything, to they "won't do anything" because they don't "negotiate" for release of citizens.

They are conflating a terrorist type of situation with a third party dispute between China and the US. The government should release her immediately.

 

[gardner]

I googled it and can't find any references to Canada extraditing someone from the US.

Interesting. I imagine that it happens fairly often, just not in a newsworthy way -- but that is just my assumption. I also suspect that most of the cases are of Canadians wanted back by Canada from the US, not mainly Americans wanted in Canada. There must be actual statistics somewhere.

My own searching I did come up with Anne Sacoolas, an american wanted in the UK for a hit-and-run death. She fled back to the US and the US basically just unilaterally said "no" to extradition requests. They seem prepared, on their side at least, to deny extradition without any discernable process when it suits them.