QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
China--United States--Detention of Meng Wanzhou
June 23, 2020
Honourable senators, my question for the Government Representative in the Senate has to do with the lead article in a national newspaper today concerning the views of two learned jurists on the ability and the power of the government to stop extradition proceedings in relation to Meng Wanzhou should they find that the extradition request was unwarranted and/or should the government feel it is in the national interest.
Furthermore, the views of these two learned jurists suggest that to take these actions would not compromise the independence of the judiciary, nor would they be outside the rule of law.
In the interests of the two Michaels, who have been in detention in China for many months now, and in the interests of the broader Canada-China relationship, will the government take the opportunity, with this fresh interpretation from two very seasoned scholars and lawyers, to have what Professor Allan Rock calls:
. . . a full debate based on a legitimate foundation of facts, rather than an incantation of rubrics, like “rule of law” and the “independence of the courts” and the “sanctity of the judiciary.”
Thank you for the question. The well-being of the two Michaels remains a priority for this government and for all Canadians. The two jurists that you cited are indeed eminent.
The government’s position is that under Canada’s Extradition Act, the Minister of Justice has no direct role to play until after the judicial proceedings at the final stage of the extradition process. Should the extradition judge order Ms. Meng’s committal, the minister will be tasked with determining whether or not to order her surrender.
Prior to that final stage, colleagues, in order to ensure that the Minister of Justice can carry out this role in an independent and impartial manner, all decisions in the preliminary judicial phase of extradition proceedings are and have been handled by senior officials within the Department of Justice.
