The Extradition Case of Meng Wanzhou Calls for Due Process in Canada

Jennifer Nundal

published 30 December 2020

Canada is under fire on the international stage for following its own laws.

The extradition case of Meng Wanzhou has put Canada in the middle of a diplomatic crisis between China and the United States, and China is putting pressure on Canada to pick a side.

On December 1, 2018, Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of the Chinese tech company Huawei, was arrested at Vancouver International Airport, following a request for her extradition from the United States. A New York court issued a warrant for her arrest in August, 2018 on allegations of fraud. She is accused of having misled HSBC in detailing the relationship between Huawei and another company, Skycom, in such a way as to cause HSBC to risk unknowingly violating US sanctions in Iran.

Canada has had an extradition treaty with the US since 1971, and has previously extradited individuals to the US under the stipulations of that agreement. This time, however, there is much more riding on the case.

First there are allegations that the US was politically motivated in its request for Meng’s extradition, which would nullify the request under Article 4 of the treaty. Second, China is making comments that reek of masked aggression, stating that Canada should “not go further down the wrong path.” This is not to mention the arrests of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, two Canadian nationals who had been living in China. Despite Chinese claims that detaining these men had nothing to do with Meng’s arrest, the arrests appear to be a coercive move on China’s part. These two Canadian citizens continue to rot in Chinese jails on charges of espionage, and are now awaiting trial under a justice system with a conviction rate reported to be about 99%.

While Canada is in the middle of this mess, some have claimed that the best course of action to avoid compromising the integrity and independence of the Canadian justice system would be intervention by the Attorney General David Lametti, and Meng’s immediate liberation. However, the real threat to the integrity of Canada’s judicial system are propositions such as these.

Proponents of Meng’s immediate release, including Chinese officials and conspicuous Canadian diplomats and former Parliamentarians, base their claims on the fact that the US allegedly placed a heavy hand on Canada, forced a politically motivated arrest, and will continue to bully Canada through the extradition proceedings. In other words, it works on the assumption that Canadian courts already have no integrity. Moreover, Meng’s defense has been forced to cite nothing more than potential evidence, in the form of redacted documents, to make claims of US interference. This considered, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian’s accusation that the Meng’s arrest was an abuse of the Canada-US extradition treaty, and an arbitrary “pre-coercive measure” falls sadly flat, and is further undermined by China’s questionable ethics record.

There are few options for Canada at a juncture such as this. Intervention by Lametti would spark tensions with the US, and indicate that Canada has no qualms about admitting that neither Canadian nor US justice systems can be trusted. If Canada continues with the extradition case, the strain on Canada-China relations will continue, and detainees Spavor and Kovrig are unlikely to be released.

Nonetheless, even considering strained Canadian-Chinese relations, it remains imperative for Canada to show the integrity of its laws and processes by carrying Meng’s case through to the end. Exceptions would not be made for a less political personality, and should not be made for Meng if the principle of the Rule of Law, which holds no person is above the law, is to be maintained as fundamental to the Canadian constitution. Whether Meng is extradited or not, due process matters.

Canadians such as former diplomat Robert Fowler have argued that saving Kovrig and Spavor should take priority over “making nice to Donald Trump,” but such a view fails to see that this is not simply a question of choosing which power coerces Canada, it is a question of whether Canada respects Canadian law enough to resist coercion. In other words, this is not a question of whether the Trump administration is ethical enough not to interfere; it is a question of whether the Canadian justice system can stand up to interference. To send Meng back to China without due process would be to bow to pressures from China, showing the US that Canada is not a reliable partner in bilateral agreements, and demonstrating to the rest of the world that Canadian principles are nothing but chaff, and simply blow away in a gust of diplomatic pressure. Canadian law must direct Canadian diplomacy, not the other way around.