QUESTION PERIOD — Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Detention of Canadians in China
May 16, 2019
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
I’d like to come back to something the Government Leader said in this chamber yesterday. I quote:
Clearly, if we had an extradition treaty with China, we would be in a better situation with respect to the management of some of our consular issues. But the fact is that the extradition negotiations haven’t led to fruition at this point, and that has consequences in a real sense for Canadians who are in a state of concern that we all have for their well-being in China.
Senator Harder, on this side, that quote has created some confusion amongst my colleagues because, to our knowledge and as defined in the Extradition Act, an extradition treaty would mean that Canada would ask China to arrest, detain and extradite someone to be prosecuted here for offences committed under Canadian laws. I can’t see how an extradition treaty with China would help in any way Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. The rules involving consular assistance are in the Vienna Convention. Could you let us know how you and Mr. Trudeau believe that an extradition treaty with China would allow Canadians to ask China to extradite Canadian citizens who have committed no crime in Canada just so we can free them from China?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Clearly if we had concluded — and hopefully we will at some point — an extradition treaty with China, there would be a better understanding on all sides of the appropriate rule of law governing extradition processes which would not have lead to the misunderstanding and certainly the misapprehensions that are obviously in play with respect to the actions Canada has taken in the situation of Ms. Meng. Had that understanding been available and had the clarity of the Canadian rule of law been in place, we may not have been in a situation where Canadians are in detention.
That was my intention and the reason I said that. I’m well aware of the basis on which consular access is provided but a better understanding of our respective judicial systems and the way in which extradition treaties are managed would have benefited both sides and, in particular, the Chinese understanding of Canada’s extradition process.
Honourable senators, the question at issue here is not whether ours is a country of the rule of law while China has a different rule of law and making a comparison. The question here is whether we have a government that has been inactive and incapable of improving Canada-Chinese relations to the point of helping Canadian citizens whose lives are in danger.
You also cautioned yesterday, Senator Harder, about my questions regarding Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. You said:
I would also caution you to place, as the honourable senator is anxious to do, the situation in the hands of our Prime Minister. These were decisions taken by the Government of China.
You also said:
It is important that we not seek to have partisan advantage in a situation where Canadian lives are at stake.
Let me quote the Honourable Stéphane Dion, then a member of the Liberal opposition in the house, asking a question on January 26, 2015 about Raif Badawi who is in a Saudi jail:
Will the Prime Minister intercede directly with the new Saudi king as requested by Mr. Badawi’s spouse?
The same request for Prime Minister Harper to directly intervene was made by several Liberal members, including the Honourable Irwin Cotler and the Honourable Marc Garneau, currently a minister in the government of Justin Trudeau.
Senator Harder, why do you think parliamentarians should not ask inconvenient questions about the inaction of Prime Minister Trudeau regarding Canadians who have been jailed in China? Or is it as usual on the part of Senator Harder and our colleagues here — it is only partisan when it is a Conservative who is asking the hard and difficult questions?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Let me, first of all reassure Canadians in this chamber that the Prime Minister has, from the very beginning of the situation involving, first, Mike Kovrig, and then subsequently other Canadians, been personally and deeply involved. Other ministers have been involved and, as I’ve indicated in a longer answer to a previous question, Canada has engaged with a number of allies who, themselves, have brought to bear their concerns and interests on the matter to the Government of China.
As recently as a few hours ago, in a press interview, the Prime Minister from Paris said:
We will continue to work with our allies and work directly with China to ensure that they understand that we are a country of the rule of law, and we will allow our legal processes to unfold independently while at the same time we will always stand up for Canadians and will continue to.
It is important for us all to recognize, particularly on a day on which two Canadians were formally charged, that we should work together to minimize the risk to their well-being and to work closely on all avenues that could lead to a successful conclusion.
It was not that long ago — a number of decades — that the tragic events at Tiananmen Square took place. Nobody in Canada blamed Mr. Mulroney for the coolness of diplomatic relations at that time. It was clear. Similarly, the coolness of the relationship right now is the result of Chinese actions. That is what I said earlier. That is what the Government of Canada is seeking to repair.
