Evidence of meeting #4 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was extradition.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, could I give a minute of my time just so I could hear Mr. Harris? I was going to go into this line of questioning.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
The question was simple. You're suggesting that the overriding power of the minister, which says "at any time", is actually spent once the hearing is complete. The question then is, has that power, to your knowledge, ever been used?
11:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice
That's a yes to the first part of your question. Once there's a committal, you can't withdraw the authority to proceed, but the minister still has the power to end the proceedings by discharging at his stage. The withdrawal of the authority to proceed is handled by officials, and that's prior to the committal decision. Then, once there has been a committal decision, the minister is making a decision on surrender. His decision could be to surrender or to discharge, and a discharge would bring the proceedings to a close.
11:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice
Yes, the minister has discharged, and yes, officials have withdrawn an authority to proceed in circumstances as I've described: where the evidence is no longer available or where the case has been withdrawn by the requesting state.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Harris encroached a tiny bit on Mr. Albas's time, but I think Mr. Albas is okay with that.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes, I'll overlook that.
Thank you very much for your presence here today.
In regard to that, could you supply the committee with the last time that kind of discharge process happened, just so we can see whether this has been used recently or if it's something that has happened only rarely in our history?
I'd like to ask a little question about the Minister of Justice component. Obviously we are talking about the Minister of Justice and not the Attorney General, and therefore Shawcross doesn't apply in this case. Is that correct?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure how to answer that question. We wouldn't be in a position to provide you with legal advice on the application of the Shawcross principle. I think I'll leave it at that.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Well, the treaty specifically in this process says, “the Minister of Justice in his or her capacity”, not as Attorney General, or else it would say “Attorney General”. In addition to the Minister of Justice receiving the decision of the court, when it moves to the ministerial phase can the Minister of Justice, in his or her capacity, be lobbied by other members of cabinet?
11:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice
I can't speak to whether cabinet can lobby, but what I can tell you is that there are very limited matters that the minister should be considering in making his decision, and those are issues relevant to the extradition process: the treaty, the Extradition Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Extraneous issues that are relevant to the government in other contexts would not be relevant to the decision on an extradition case.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, though, to that, is it a cabinet order? Can the minister take the decision of the court to cabinet to solicit feedback in a formal mechanism? Or must the Minister of Justice, through another mechanism, like the Canada Gazette or something else, make that decision independent of cabinet?
11:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice
The decision is made independent of cabinet and it's pursuant to the Extradition Act. The minister issues an order of either discharge or surrender. It doesn't go through the Gazette and it doesn't go through cabinet.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay.
I only have a moment here. Media reports say that the Chinese government first found out about Ms. Meng's arrest from Huawei rather than the Canadian government. Can you comment on that?
11:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice
No. I think that would be a question for Global Affairs.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
That would be a question for Global Affairs, and we just had them here. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I think we'll have them again, of course, some people from Global Affairs—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
You know what, Mr. Chair? I think that's a great idea.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you. I mean that we'll have some people, whether it's those or others, but we'll figure that out, I'm sure.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm just glad to see that we have some multi-party support for that.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I'm going to actually pull on what Mr. Harris and Mr. Albas were questioning. I'm not a lawyer, so it takes me a little longer on this issue. I understand the ministerial decision on surrender and the basis on which that would be made under the act, under the particular bilateral treaty and under the charter issues, after a superior court has rendered its decision. That's one process.
On the ability of the minister after the authority to proceed, between that and the ultimate court decision, it sounds like if circumstances change, or if new evidence is presented, or an extradition request is withdrawn, that then allows the minister to stop the proceedings. I just want to make sure that I understand two things. What criteria are involved? What precedents are involved? Where does the burden lie on understanding how that decision would be made? Who makes that case and how does it happen?