- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,465
- Reaction score
- 19,290
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
That is correct (sort of).
In accordance with the Extradition Act, the US government requested that the Canadian government detain Ms. Meng and then hold an extradition hearing so that the request of the US government that she be surrendered to the US government for prosecution could be considered.
Under the provisions of the Extradition Act, once presented with such a request (that does, however, have to be accompanied by a valid order for the arrest of the person named should that person be found within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States of America [as this request was]), the Canadian authorities are REQUIRED to DETAIN the person named in the request.
However, there is no REQUIREMENT that the person named in the request CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED and (in accordance with the principle of Canadian law that a person SHALL be released upon posting of what the court considers to be sufficient sureties for their future attendance [with the proviso that the amount and nature of those sureties MUST be within the means of the person seeking release on bail]) upon the Canadian courts determining an appropriate surety (and upon that surety being delivered up) the person MUST be released (regardless of what Mr. Trump wants).
However, the Canadian Minister of Justice (and that's the person who actually has to sign the extradition order) has the right to refuse to sign an extradition order if doing so would be "unjust under all the circumstances of the case" (that's a paraphrase and I've provided links to the specific section [it's Section 44 of the Extradition Act] previously). That would mean that the Minister of Justice COULD conclude that it would be "unjust" to extradite someone to face a "politically motivated prosecution" - REGARDLESS of the strength of the evidence against that person regarding the crime that they are accused of committing.
Mr. Trump's offer to trade Ms. Meng in return for "a good trade deal" is a reasonably clear indicator that this IS a "politically motivated prosecution".
Ms. Meng HAS BEEN charged in the United States of America and it appears that the acts that resulted in her being charged are (likely to be) crimes in BOTH Canada and the United States of America. (I expect that one of the positions that will be advanced on behalf of Ms. Meng is that it is NOT a crime in Canada to evade American sanctions on Iran. This would be analogous to the position during the Vietnam War where "draft dodgers" were NOT extradited [it NOT being a criminal offence in Canada to "dodge the draft"] while "deserters" were routinely extradited ["desertion" being a crime under the laws of both Canada and the United States of America].)
What Mr. Trump appears to have overlooked is that it is the government that actually has Ms. Meng that is in the strongest position to bargain for a "better trade deal" in return for her release.
After all, I don't think that GM would be all that upset about re-opening a Canadian auto plant if the cars produced there could be imported into China with a (let's say) 5% tariff while the identical car produced in the United States of America would have a 30% tariff applied to it. And, of course, Canada does produce other things that China could use that the US currently buys a lot of. Admittedly oil (which the US currently buys at an artificially depressed price), fertilizer, aluminum, lumber, and paper (to name just a few) are totally unnecessary for the American economy so the US wouldn't even notice it if they stopped flowing from Canada to the United States and started flowing from Canada to China. Right?
